Camera choice for Landscape work

[jrko]

Been lurking & reading for a while soaking up the info.

Have been a dedicated FF digital user and moved on up to MF with a Mamiya RZ pro II. Now wanting for get the further gains that LF offer.

I have seen a couple of options for dipping my toe into the waters with 4x5 and would like your opinion. I've seen a Calumet view camera with 210mm Caltar lens and a Graflex crown graphic with a Wollensak Raptar 127mm lens.

I know that the Calumet has full movements but is heavier and the Graflex is a lighter folding (field?) camera with relatively little movements.

What to do:confused:

[Lachlan 717]

Landscape work generally doesn't require excessive movements. This is more the domain of architectural and still-life/table-top/studio work.

If you're going to be getting off the beaten track, choose the lightest one. Second to this, get the one that's quickest to set up. Third, look at the bellows draw. Being able to put both wide angles and telephotos could be important (once you get the hang of your first lens!). Finally, consider availability of additional and/or replacement parts. Obscure cameras are like obscure cars: hard to get parts for!

[rdenney]

Hold off a bit. There are so many options that are made available in each succeeding week that you are under no pressure to make a quick decision.

The Calumet view cameras came in two general flavors. The first was the CC series, made during the 60's and 70's. They are heavy and bulky, and predate the move into modular view cameras at the lower end of the market. For example, they have fixed bellows and non-interchangeable backs. If you wanted to use wider or longer lenses, you used a different model camera--there were three versions. The normal version would not accept anything wider than 90mm.

The second flavor of Calumet view cameras were made by the Dutch company Cambo, and is similar to the Cambo SC. There were several versions of these, but they all were fully modular with interchangeable bellows, large lens boards, and Graflok backs. These are lighter than the earlier Calumets and more flexible, but they are also bulkier.

Both are monorail view cameras, which is a whole category of large-format. Monorail cameras were intended for commercial work, particularly for architecture, product, and studio photography. But they work fine in the field if you can deal with the volume they consume. For learning how movements work and for their extreme flexibility, they are good tools for those just starting with large format, and the Cambos and Calumets are so cheap that it's almost worth having one just to have around even if you end up working with folding cameras more often. I regularly see prices on the desirable Calumet 45NX (like the Cambo SCII) that are cheaper than reasonable-condition Crown Graphics, and the Calumets are decades newer. There are also, at any given time, about a zillion accessories that fit these cameras available on the market. With a bag bellows, these will easily handle wide-angle lenses down to 72-75mm. With a standard bellows, they will extend out far enough for probably a conventional 300-360mm lens, or longer lens of telephoto design.

For only a little more, there are alternatives that were a bit more upmarket back when these were new, including my favorite example, the Sinar F series. These are even more modular than the Calumet and are also a little more compact. And they are more refined. If you are wide-angle freak, these will accommodate down to 47mm or even 38mm with the appropriate bellows.

The categorical alternative to the monorail view camera is the field camera, which uses a sliding bed instead of a monorail. Most (but not all) field cameras fold up into the rear standard for easy packing. These in large measure grew out of the ubiquitous press camera, of which Speed and Crown Graphics are the most visible examples. Field cameras are usually more limited in movements, and getting the movements you want often requires more manipulations, but in landscape work these may be less of an issue.

Field cameras are often built for beauty as much as for utility, and many were built to sell to photographic artists rather than for purely commercial applications. Thus, they tend as a category to be pricier than monorail cameras in the current market. If you intend to put the camera in a backpack, and folding field camera will make that much easier to do. The newer field cameras (or the older fancier models) have plenty of movements, but you may have to fiddle with several adjustments to achieve the same movements that would be easy with only one adjustment on a monorail camera. And it is sometimes harder to visualize what the camera is doing in terms of movements with a field camera, and may therefore be a little more challenging as a learning camera.

Press cameras like the Crown Graphic were designed to be used hand-held, and make a number of compromises to support that application. They usually have few movements, including front shift, and front tilt and swing. The newer ones have a drop bed for handling wide-angle lenses, but 90 is a useful limit (Crown Graphics will probably work down to 75 or so, but Speed Graphics are thicker because of their focal plane shutter option and are limited to 90. They are limited on the long end, too, and longer lenses will usually require telephoto designs. But if you want hand-held large format, these are one of few options.

Which of these general types you choose will depend on what you intend to do as a photographer. My usual recommendation is to start with a low-cost monorail and learn how to manipulate the movements to manage the image plane. If you buy a used monorail of good quality, and then later decide to move to a different type, you'll get back most if not all of what you spent on it. Given that I don't backpack with large format or need so small a package, I have stayed with the monorail and I do enjoy the flexibility. But if you intend to backpack with it right from the start, then the cheapest entry might be that Crown Graphic, with the understanding that you give up some of the power of a view camera.

Rick "who owns both versions of the Calumet plus a Sinar F/F2" Denney

[jrko]

Thanks Rick. I've seen a early (i think) Calumet view camera without a lens. Its seems to be in great condition. Its light grey with a red circular Calumet logo on the front panel. It appears to only have forward/backward and front/rear tilt & swivel movements. Would that be enough to get learning or would you recommend vertical (rise) movements as well?

I regularly take a lowepro backpack with 2 dslr bodies 4 lenses, my RZII with 1 lens, polaroid and film backs as well as an aluminium tripod with ball head so a view camera would probably not be a weight issue:D

[Frank Petronio]

The RZ is as heavy as most 4x5s ;-) it will soon be redundant.

The best course is to buy and try the different styles -- monorail, folding, etc. -- as it is easy to resell them and break even if you buy them wisely in the first place.

I tend to favor the simple monorails for starting out because the movements and controls are more obvious and apt to be experimented with, so you learn quicker. They are also easier and faster to set up, and usually more robust. At the expense of weight and bulk -- they aren't backpacking cameras.

[rdenney]

Thanks Rick. I've seen a early (i think) Calumet view camera without a lens. Its seems to be in great condition. Its light grey with a red circular Calumet logo on the front panel. It appears to only have forward/backward and front/rear tilt & swivel movements. Would that be enough to get learning or would you recommend vertical (rise) movements as well?

I regularly take a lowepro backpack with 2 dslr bodies 4 lenses, my RZII with 1 lens, polaroid and film backs as well as an aluminium tripod with ball head so a view camera would probably not be a weight issue:D

That's a CC-400, most likely. It has rise, too--that knob on the upper right drives a gear that will raise the lens standard. This is an old camera design, derived from the Kodak Master View. It's functional, but it does have its limits.

If we were having this conversation in the 1980's, the old Calumet would be by far the best deal around. Likewise if you are looking at a $100-150 (with lens) camera and can't spend more. But these days, for very little more, you can get a camera that is lighter, more flexible, and easier to use. The flexibility means interchangeable bellows, backs, and rails. It means being able to mix and match a range of parts to meet specific needs. The best example is also a Calumet, but the newer Cambo-made 45 series.

KEH has five of these at this moment, ranging from the simplest Calumet 45 to fancier Cambo-labeled models, and ranging in price from about a hundred bucks to less than three hundred bucks. You'll have to add a lens board and lens, but it's easy to get one of these with a decent lens for less than $300 if you choose carefully. It's hard to get a Crown Graphic with lens similarly good condition for that, and the Graphic will be decades older.

Go to KEH.com, click large format (and large format again) and then camera bodies.

Then, go to ebay, and search on Calumet Cambo. You'll pages of lens boards, bellows, Fresnels, tripod blocks, rails, and on and on.

I personally think these are great starter cameras but they are good enough to keep using into the future, if you stick with the monorail design. The only downside to these is their limited ability to handle really short lenses--shorter than about 75mm (with bag bellows). If you are a wide-angle freak, a Sinar F is better and not much more expensive. The Cambos are a bit bulkier, but they are lighter, too.

Rick "seeing lots of options" Denney

[Ivan J. Eberle]

There's a fourth category of camera that falls between a folding field design and a press camera, called a technical camera. Linhof Technikas, Wistas, and Meridians are examples. The common feature here is having revolving backs, and also swing and tilt of the rear plane, often via locking posts.

The beauty of them is that they're all metal, virtually bomb-proof designs that fold up with a lens safely inside, and which can be deployed in about 30 seconds or less. Some may have rangefinders, a feature I find useful for landscape when the light is fleeting or when using a Grafmatic or roll-film back. Technical cameras have more generous moves than press cameras, but most are quite a bit less adept at handling wide angles than are monorails or folding field cameras with bag bellows.

I've got a couple of Meridians. They're over 60 years old, yet light-tight and still tough as nails. Today they're relative bargains that turn up fairly regularly despite being rather rare and moderately collectible.

[aduncanson]

I am intentionally being somewhat provocative here, but what I am expressing is my experience and others are free to disagree. I feel like I wasted 20 years with 5 different monorails before breaking down and buying a nice field camera last year (a Canham Traditional 5x7.) I still have 3 Calumets/Cambos (at least one is redundant and should be offered up for sale) but I shudder at the thought of carrying them outside of the house. In fact I found my much less capable Busch Pressman to get more use. The simple monorails are inexpensive to acquire, good to learn on and highly functional, but if you find that it's bulk is cramping your use of it, then move on quickly. In 4x5, I would look at the Tachihara, Wista, Shen Hao or Chamonix field cameras or a bunch of others now out of production.

[Robert Hughes]

The RZ is as heavy as most 4x5s ;-) it will soon be redundant.

The best course is to buy and try the different styles -- monorail, folding, etc. -- as it is easy to resell them and break even if you buy them wisely in the first place
Or, do as I do:
"It's easy to resell them and break them, even if you buy them wisely in the first place."


I feel like I wasted 20 years with 5 different monorails before breaking down a buying a nice field camera last year
Yeah, most my cameras are broken down, too. Like my car (wa-a-a-h!)

[Brian Ellis]

I've seen many many messages here and in other similar forums over the years from people who have been using a monorail camera for landscape photography and who want to switch to a field camera, usually because of the weight and bulk of their monorail systems. In that same length of time I've seen few if any messages from anyone wanting to switch from a field camera to a monorail for landscape work. I'd suggest starting out with a good relatively inexpensive field camera, maybe a used Tachihara, Zone VI, Shen Hao, etc.

[Caivman]

What sort of cost are you looking at throwing at your camera? Other than weight and subject matter, that's really the only other MAJOR determining factor.

If cost is no problem, i'd probably go with a "technical" type field camera. Monorails seem cumbersome to me and having to dismantle and lug around all those parts seems like a hazard waiting to happen. I could be wrong though, and i'm not bashing them in any way. Some of the more impressive still life/studio shots i've seen have been monorail cameras.

If cost is an issue (less than $500.00 initial investment) i'd say go with a Crown/Speed Graphic 4x5 or similar press camera. You can find em for a pretty decent price online, on forums, at some universities looking to liquidate old equipment, and sometimes in local antique stores off the beaten path.

Movements required while shooting landscapes is more about having a good pair of climbing boots than a fancy camera. If you're going to focus on architecture within a landscape though, i'd shoot for the technical or a more basic rail camera.

[rdenney]

Movements required while shooting landscapes is more about having a good pair of climbing boots than a fancy camera. If you're going to focus on architecture within a landscape though, i'd shoot for the technical or a more basic rail camera.

Hmmm. Most of what I do is in the landscape category, but I find that I still use movements on just about every single image I make. As much as anything, I use a view camera to get access to that capability. Starting out with a camera that sharply limits that capability seems a mistake to me.

For portraits where the goal is just get big film, and for ultra-portable/hand-held large-format photography, the press cameras are slick. Yes, you can do landscapes using them (heck, I do landscapes on a digital SLR), but it is a lot to mess with and not have the advantage of careful image management.

I tend to have something close to the camera in most of my photos, so that's probably why I find myself dealing with movements so much. Again, it comes down to what one does with the camera.

Rick "who likes being able to visualize tilts and swings by sighting along standards" Denney

[rdenney]

I am intentionally being somewhat provocative here, but what I am expressing is my experience and others are free to disagree. I feel like I wasted 20 years with 5 different monorails before breaking down and buying a nice field camera last year (a Canham Traditional 5x7.)

A Canham is rather up market for starting out, isn't it?

Here's my thinking: The first large-format camera one buys is likely not to meet his needs fully as he gains experience. That would be true no matter how much he spends. There is just too much we cannot know about how we will use our first camera until we have it and use it.

So, if the first camera is likely not to be our last in any case, should we start with a cheaper camera or a more expensive camera? Especially if we all acknowledge that the cheaper camera provides more clarity while learning? Without my monorail experience, I doubt I would know what I needed in a technical or field camera, and if I had started with a field camera, I might not know what I'm missing in terms of flexibility.

I'm on my fourth view camera, and I'm still using and enjoying a monorail, not only for its clarity, but also for its flexibility. The first field camera that has really caught my eye after 30 years of looking at them is the new Shen-Hao that accepts Sinar boards and bellows, because even if I had it, I would not give up the monorail.

But I don't fly with it, and I don't backpack with it, and if I did either of those regularly, my attitude would absolutely be different. That's why I present things in terms of the requirements they fulfill.

Rick "who actually has carried a Cambo/Calumet in a backpack, but who proved most of what's being said by the experience" Denney

[Brian Ellis]

Hmmm. Most of what I do is in the landscape category, but I find that I still use movements on just about every single image I make. As much as anything, I use a view camera to get access to that capability. Starting out with a camera that sharply limits that capability seems a mistake to me. . . . Rick "who likes being able to visualize tilts and swings by sighting along standards" Denney

"Sharply limits" seems a little extreme. I can't think of any of the 12 or so field cameras I've owned that sharply limited movements. Even the Tachiharas and Deardorffs, which had fewer movements than any others I've owned, had front rise, fall, tilt, and swing and back tilt and swing. They were missing only front and rear shift, which is no big deal since the same thing usually can be accomplished other ways (e.g. by moving the tripod), and back rise and fall. Other field cameras I've owned have had these movements plus in some cases front or rear shift. The only movement I can think of that I've never had on any field camera has been back rise and fall and I can't say I've ever noticed its absence.

So I don't think most modern field cameras severely limit movements or even limit movements in any significant way, especially not for landscape work where the principal movement most people use is front or rear tilt or swing, something that's present on every modern field camera I can think of. But I agree with everything else you've said, particularly the part about the first LF camera likely not being the last. I think the most important thing is just to get started with something, almost anything, that will enable a newcomer to learn what features are important to him or her and which are unimportant so that a better-informed decision can be made the next time around.

[Jack Dahlgren]

A Canham is rather up market for starting out, isn't it?

Here's my thinking: The first large-format camera one buys is likely not to meet his needs fully as he gains experience. That would be true no matter how much he spends. There is just too much we cannot know about how we will use our first camera until we have it and use it.

So, if the first camera is likely not to be our last in any case, should we start with a cheaper camera or a more expensive camera? Especially if we all acknowledge that the cheaper camera provides more clarity while learning? Without my monorail experience, I doubt I would know what I needed in a technical or field camera, and if I had started with a field camera, I might not know what I'm missing in terms of flexibility.

I'm on my fourth view camera, and I'm still using and enjoying a monorail

I'd suggest that the starting camera influences the next camera and that is why you are still using a monorail. Indeed, it would appear that you learned nothing about other types of cameras :-) Like a baby bird, the photographer identifies with a camera based on their initial experience.

I come from the opposite sort of imprinting. I like something light that folds up small and that is a story I'm going to stick with. I did spend a couple of months with a monorail, but my first camera was a Speed Graphic and that made all the difference.

I'd agree that the cost of the camera is something that might be desirable to minimize for the first camera. LF does require a bit more commitment and it is not for everyone, so it is good to buy something that is pretty liquid that you won't take a loss on.

Buy the type that you think you will like, because as Mr. Denney illustrates, you never forget your first.

Jack "who knows that even penguins are not black and white" Dahlgren

[rdenney]

I'd suggest that the starting camera influences the next camera and that is why you are still using a monorail. Indeed, it would appear that you learned nothing about other types of cameras :-) Like a baby bird, the photographer identifies with a camera based on their initial experience.

Heh. I started with a NueVue. That should have put me off of monorails forever!

Rick "who truly hated that camera, but it was cheap" Denney

[rdenney]

"Sharply limits" seems a little extreme.

The alternative the OP mentioned was not a technical camera, but rather a press camera--a Crown Graphic. A usable technical/field camera would cost quite a bit more. You can get a pro-quality monorail for the price of a Crown in good condition these days.

Rick "yes, the movements on a Crown Graphic are pretty limited" Denney

[rdenney]

I'd suggest that the starting camera influences the next camera and that is why you are still using a monorail.

More seriously...

Not really. My brand of large-format "landscape" always seems to include a lot foreground work, and a lot of architecture. Back when I bought the Cambo, I would have had to pay three or four times that for a field camera (let alone an all-metal technical camera) that would have provided the same movements. I chose to put that money into lenses.

And since I like having a wide range of lenses, I find myself wanting cameras with the flexibility to handle them. As difficult as it is to carry a monorail, it's not more difficult than carrying a couple of field cameras, heh. My roll-around case holds the camera, two sets of bellows, three different kinds of backs, and six lenses (in addition to the usual dark cloth, meter, loupe, and so on). Of those six lenses, the longest won't fit on field cameras with a single or double-extension bed, and the shortest won't fit on just about any field camera of which I'm aware. All fit fine on the Sinar, because it is so modular and extendable. All but one fit fine on the Cambo. It's a different strategy, but one that fits my visualization (such as it is) and intentions.

Maybe I'd have gone a different direction had I started with a Speed Graphic, but I didn't. Neither did the OP.

Rick "more interested in the process of choosing than in the choice" Denney

[sanking]

I'd suggest that the starting camera influences the next camera and that is why you are still using a monorail. Indeed, it would appear that you learned nothing about other types of cameras :-) Like a baby bird, the photographer identifies with a camera based on their initial experience.



You could be right about this. My first field camera was a 5X7 folding wood field Nagaoka and I still own and use it. What I learned from this camera, which has been nearly perfect for my use, which includes backpacking and travel, is that the primary requirements in a field camera are light weight and compact size, along with a design that allows fast set-up and break-down. And I can not think of one single instance where this design left me wanting in terms of movements. What it taught me was that a monorail is about the last design I would consider for field work.

My advice would be same as that of Brian Ellis, i.e. look for an inexpensive used Tachihara, Zone VII, Shen Hao, etc. Lots of these cameras out there and they are close to perfect for landscape work.

BTW, I owned a 4X5 Crown Graphic before buying the Nagaoka but the lack of movements of the old press camera was limiting to me even for landscape work.

Sandy King

[Chris Strobel]

Have been a dedicated FF digital user and moved on up to MF with a Mamiya RZ pro II. Now wanting for get the further gains that LF offer.



I'm curious as to what 'further gains' you hope to achieve, and what gains you saw going from FF to MF.

[Chris Strobel]

Okay, we have mentioned all the different classes of large format cameras, but we must not ignore what you're going to use for a scanner This is a trap for all of us, we got a great camera, but the problem is how to obtain a quality scan.

Very good point.All I own is the Epson 4990 as well, and with only several stitches from my 5DmkII I'm far exceeding the quality of my 4x5 4990 scans.Its very frustrating not being able to afford high quality 4x5 drum scans, thats why I asked the OP what he hoped to achieve with 4x5 over his FF camera.

[Jack Dahlgren]

But I thought I would mention this as an option because the scanner is the key component if you're considering large format. Unless you get those negs scanned right, you're throwing your money away.



Well, I wouldn't go that far. There are always compromises. I don't want to be stitching things together and I enjoy working with a larger camera, but I don't do it for a living so I do what I want. I also think that I can get reasonable scans from a 4990.

There is a lot of variety and choice and rarely one best way.

[Mike Anderson]

It seems to me these alternatives to 4x5 you list that use a Nikon 9000 are much more expensive than a basic 4x5 starter kit (with $500 scanner). Not that your points aren't valid, but it's a more expensive path.

...Mike


Okay, we have mentioned all the different classes of large format cameras, but we must not ignore what you're going to use for a scanner This is a trap for all of us, we got a great camera, but the problem is how to obtain a quality scan. I own a Horseman 45FA and find that the quality of the 4x5 image from the Epson 4990 (similar quality to Epson 700/750) is far inferior to the image I get using my Pentax 67 on a Nikon 9000 scanner. So where is the benefit of going large format? All you get is a bigger negative, film costs are up, lab costs up, weight is up, bigger tripod needed, and it's slower to use. So a large format camera (4x5 and larger) is really only an advantage if your willing to get a serious scanner (pro flatbeds or drum scanners), or are willing to pay to have it scanned (not cheap). So I made a decision that you must first consider the scanner, then the film format. I still have my Horseman, but use it only with my Fuji 240A and Nikor 360T lens, and 80% of the time I use a Fotoman 617 with a 90 and 150 lens and scan it with the 9000 (two halves take 185 secs each). If I want something closer to 5x7 ratio, I take my first shot, then tilt down a bit and shoot my second shot with sufficient overlap, then I scan 4 times and I'm done....giving your roughly 4x7 format. You can also get 4x5 after stitching two 612 exposures, and scan on the Nikon 9000. When you consider the time is minimal for scanning, that the negs represent your raw file (will be put in storage), and the scanned file is your working file....the end result is the same (unless you're into enlarging). The benefits of all this is..... you get a viewfinder, helical focusing with depth of field & hyperfocal scale, no more loading sheet film or dust, and far cheaper for film/processing, very light, and I have panoramic when I don't need a 4:3 ratio. Of course there is a disadvantage....it is better suited to normal to wide lenses (no tilts), and cones get long with larger teles. But I thought I would mention this as an option because the scanner is the key component if you're considering large format. Unless you get those negs scanned right, you're throwing your money away.

If you do decide on going with a pro scanner, then it is very likely you will be buying used ($2-5k range), it will consume more space on your table, will need constant supplies if your drum scanning (eg- kami fluid, etc), fumes, and one repair cost can set you back $5k. So think carefully before you buy. A nikon 9000 is more then enough quality for these huge negs, and stitching is all automatic in CS3- CS5 (you insert negative once only, and then scan twice in 6x9 chunks...fast and easy). Yeah, I know, it's not truly 4x5 or 5x7, but it does the same job. Considering the title "Camera Choice for landscape work"...you can't ignore panoramic cameras (check Peter Lik and Ken Duncan...famous landscape photographers making millions). Check out the Goaersi line, they have 612/617 and fixed bodies in 4x5 up to 8x10 if your type of shooting doesn't require tilts. Also if you want tilts and swings consider the Chamonix 617 products (very nice).

http://www.gaoersi-camera.com/cp_detail.php?id=10295&nowmenuid=3300&cpath=&catid=0

http://www.fotoman.cc/

By the way, Fotoman is gone, but Fotoman China has always been around and has everything in stock.

[sanking]

Well, I wouldn't go that far. There are always compromises. I don't want to be stitching things together and I enjoy working with a larger camera, but I don't do it for a living so I do what I want. I also think that I can get reasonable scans from a 4990.

There is a lot of variety and choice and rarely one best way.

Excellent point. Making two separate negatives in the field and stitching them together to get sufficient resolution is a whole different ball game than just making the one shot in the field. I have done this with medium format film but just don't enjoy that type of photography, and if I did I think a 20+ mp DSLR would be overall less expensive and easier than working with film.

Sandy King

[Kimberly Anderson]

I have been printing 8x20 gelatin silver prints all day from 4x10 film negatives. A HUGE pain in the arse, but very, very beautiful prints.

I think you have to enjoy the process as much as the product.

[Chris Strobel]

Excellent point. Making two separate negatives in the field and stitching them together to get sufficient resolution is a whole different ball game than just making the one shot in the field. I have done this with medium format film but just don't enjoy that type of photography, and if I did I think a 20+ mp DSLR would be overall less expensive and easier than working with film.

Sandy King

Yeah what ever you enjoy shooting I guess.However I was at Pt. Lobos last Thursday with both my 4x5 and digital stitching kits.There was no way I could get the 4x5 to stop shaking in that coastal wind with the bellows extension I needed for the rock formation details, it was blowing like hell all day.I finally said the heck with it and set my little digital up on the nodal head and went to work.In that circumstance the 4x5 was absolutely no fun to work with.I ended up with several shots worth printing in the 1 gigapixel range, and stitching with Autopano Giga is a breeze.Had I been with the 4x5 only, I would have come home empty handed.

[Frank Petronio]

Not that I don't love everyone with abundant flowers and sunshine, but a fair number of you "wannabees" ought to step up and grow a pair and buy some real cameras. "But No!" they whine, "It must be a camera made from endangered Ebony wood soaked in female Yak Urine and whittled upon by some ancient Japanese Crone, then adorned with retooled leftover Cold War Russian titanium baubles and gee-haws."

Professional monorail or toy folding hobby box, everyone has an opinion.... just do yourself a favor and get a camera made from metal. Then when you try a pretty woodie you'll understand just how flaccid they are.

[Brian Ellis]

The alternative the OP mentioned was not a technical camera, but rather a press camera--a Crown Graphic. A usable technical/field camera would cost quite a bit more. You can get a pro-quality monorail for the price of a Crown in good condition these days.

Rick "yes, the movements on a Crown Graphic are pretty limited" Denney

I didn't understand him to be limiting the question to only the two specific cameras he mentioned. If that was his intent then my apologies for suggesting something other than those two.

[Chris Strobel]

I don't believe in stitching a dozen images with a dslr (2 is ideal with large format and gives you more then enough film area). With smaller formats some guys are doing 3 rows and 4 columns and this takes time. You're now essentially shooting blind, the light can change, and bracketing for different exposures becomes ineffective.

That seems like a lot more work stitching with a view camera vs. a digital.People always talk about changing light, moving water, etc, but with the latest software like AP Giga, its just a no brainer easy job blending the images, even with each image having different levels of brightness.I shot this Saturday at Point Reyes in pretty rapidly changing light with my 10mp A640.It was very windy, and the rapidly moving clouds were covering and uncovering the sun quite rapidly.On my Nodal Ninja 3 pano head I had all 9 frames shot in under 30 sec.The net result is 360ppi at 17.2 x 22.5 inches.If I had used my 5DmkII 21mp camera it would be double that size.A 30 x 40 print is pretty big in my book.Really the resolution race is over imho, now days its what do you enjoy shooting.Myself I shoot 8x10, 4x5, FF dslr, Crop dslr, and P&S, and enjoy them all.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1131/4598044600_71029c1e41_o.jpg

[jrko]

Wow! Loads of comments whilst I slept.

'the scanner is the key component if you're considering large format. Unless you get those negs scanned right, you're throwing your money away'

Do none of you print from your negatives any more? :( Shame on you :D

I was going to develop my negs and scan them on my Epson v500 for a better look. If its a keeper then off it goes for pro scanning. Then back to me for devilish digital doings and back out for LF printing.

That way I can do the quality control without the need for a $5000 scanner and LF printer and only pro scan/print the top 5% of my negatives.

As for performance gains over MF which someone asked. 20sq inches of negative vs 6.72sq inches of negative makes for a 2/3 increase is final negative size. Assuming that both films have the same resolving capability then there should be a significant increase in fine detail for the same image thus enabling larger prints. At least I hope so. Otherwise i'm going back to APS-C point and shoots ;)

[Thebes]

Just so you know the v500 (like my 4490) does only 2 1/4 wide at a time with transparent media. In practice you can scan two swatches and stitch them in PS. This takes an extra several minutes per neg. If I were into digital work flow I'd probably upgrade, but it works for the little that I use it- some of us still do print from our negs.

[rdenney]

I didn't understand him to be limiting the question to only the two specific cameras he mentioned. If that was his intent then my apologies for suggesting something other than those two.

I see no problem with suggesting an alternative. My point was that my comment concerning limitations, to which you responded, was aimed at the Crown Graphic the OP mentioned, not at a technical camera, which is how I think you interpreted it. That's why I clarified.

Rick "not arguing against technical cameras for those who have the scratch and the need" Denney

[Chris Strobel]

there are no rules when it comes to art.

Amen.

p.s. I would love to see some of the images you've done with film stitching, would you happen to have a website or Flickr type account by any chance?

Chris

[Chris Strobel]

There are obviously applications where the technique is not practical, just as there are applications where a view camera is not practical.This is my little stable of cameras with only my Shen 4x5 not in the picture, and the Pentax K20D has been replaced with a Canon 5DmkII.The bottom line for myself is I will choose the smallest and easiest camera to get the image I see in my minds eye at the resolution I envision at the final print stage.Doing lots of stitching to you may be the poor mans approach,
but to me its the practical mans approach in a lot of situations, especially when hiking in 20 miles on the John Muir trail :)

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/115544956/original.jpg





You're 100% right that a view camera can be more trouble for stitching (must open shutter/aperture/unload film/etc) to prepare for the second shot. But fortunately I have a finder for the Horseman 45FA and the Fotoman 617 cameras I own. So with the Fotoman it is just a matter of advancing the film with a knob, and the other requires flipping the film holder over to the other side. Quick and sweet.

Stitching 9 frames is not the same as one single shot. Try shooting from a boat/helicoptor 9 frames, or large rolling stormy waves crashing into a wall of rocks (see attached photos). In my case I shoot tallships, wildlife, things that move (why I got the finders), so stitching is not my preferred choice, but starting with big film is. In 30 secs these huge waves before the first and last would leave a blur (nothing crisp). There is simplye nothing like a single shot on large film, rather then trying to stitch a bunch of images together to make up for the small format your using. I see stitching as useful if I'm using a 617 camera, and decide I need a bit more foreground (so I tilt down and take a second shot). I also think stitching is useful for those who cannot afford at the moment to buy a high end pro scanner. By stitching only 2 shots, you're 4x5 becomes roughly 4x10 or 5x8, and now you're able to get very high quality 40 inch prints from a cheap Epson scanner (only 3-4x enlargement). The other option I suggested was shooting 612/617 film and use the Nikon 9000 (for the times you might need a more normal 4:3 ratio, a second shot that would be stitched saves the day). But I don't believe in doing this all the time either just so I can print big prints. At that point it is better to get a bigger camera, and do it right. If you're using wider lenses, the more you stitch, the more the center of the image caves inwards also. Time is also working against you, unless you're photographing the Grand Canyon. So stitching has its place, but it is not a replacement for buying a bigger format (or higher mp dslr camera). Doing lots of stitching to me is the poor mans approach, it works, but not always.
The resolution race is not over, not until a digital camera can do it in a single shot. Lets remember we can stitch 4x5 film 9x also, so there is no catching up. While both digital and film are both outputting at 300ppi resolution, they both perform very well. But a P45 back (39mp) starts getting into interpolation starting at 27 inches (a p65 goes a little further). Large format film can print far larger when you need big prints (10x enlargements only begin to show grain). The bottom line though is that most of us cannot, or refuse to dish out the $ for a high end digital back, so you either stitch, or get yourself some BIG FILM and do it right.

http://www.mangelsen.com/store/Collector_Edition_Prints___Panoramics___Antarctica___South_Georgia___Iceland___Antarctic_Slide___Gentoo_Penguins___6173?Args=


http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1923755&id=96898598406

The above 2 shots would be hard to do. The penguins are moving, and you are moving in the boat (a Fotoman 617 would make this an easy shot with finder and helical focusing with depth of field and hyperfocal scale). The shot from the helicopter of crashing waves would also be a blur and not practical for stitching, yet Plisson shoots these with a 4x5 camera (one shot) for huge prints.

[Chris Strobel]

If your constanly having for all shots to stich 10-20 images together, just so you get the equivalent quality, then why not start with a bigger camera.

There are a lot of reasons why I'm more and more favoring the dslr or compact and stitching over my 8x10.Depth of field is one, light weight is another, and cost versus 8x10 chromes and drum scanning is yet another.30"x40" is the biggest I ever go, or plan to ever go, and it doesn't take very many stitches to get to that size with my 20mp dslr at my Epson's native 360ppi.



Of course high end digital is not affordable, but large format certainly is.

B&W yes, color no



Again, there is no perfect camera, a 8x10 camera can do what smaller formats cannot, but trying to immitate one with stitching is crazy because a lot of shots do not allow for stitching (examples were shown).

Yes and no.Personally I have never done a shot with my 4x5 or 8x10 that couldn't be done with modern stitching software, thats just my personal style and subject matter, intimate landscapes and still lifes mostly.Last week at Point Lobos it was so windy there was no way to keep my Shen-Hao 4x5 from buffeting in the wind.Before digital I would have come home with no images.With my digital camera and stitching I came home with images I like, that if I want to can be printed up to 30"x40" at 360ppi with no interpolation.The wind was no problem with the little canon on my Nodal Ninja.Anyway I think we are on the same page, its just we have different subjects we like that would favor one technique over the other like your crashing wave shots :)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/4602489690_683bd0a0f8_o.jpg

[Mark Fisher]

I agree with Sandy and Brian....go with a basic field camera. You will enjoy life more as it is easier to carry and nice to look at.
If you expect to entirely work out of a car and are set on a monorail, you might as well get a Sinar given today's prices.

[Professional]

Nice thread, new things to learn and i agree about the scanner, i bought Epson V750 and still i don't like most scans against my digital specially against my digital MF, but i will use it for scanning and if i have any film [roll or sheet] that i want in highest resolution or quality then i will send it to the lab for scanning, i will not scan many films and i don't think to use film for my best shots to print large which will cost me too much money, i have spent a lot on my digital MF so i should depend on it for my best shots over film with normal flatbed scanner, and i hope one day in the future i can afford a drum scanner or a dedicated film scanner.

[Chris Strobel]

Van don't forget that one of the most prolific landscape shooters alive, Jack Dykinga, is now shooting with dslr's and stitching in lieu of his 4x5, but I'm pretty shure he's not shooting crashing waves or tall ships :) One thing I noticed on my trip up the Calif. coast visiting a bunch of galleries including Photography West, Weston, and Rodney Lough Jr.'s, was that with the exception of Lough, all the best fine art landscapes were no larger than 30"x40", and the most famous of the artist prints smaller than that.I'm not sure where people put these uber large prints unless they own a very large home or their own gallery.

[adonis_abril]

Depends on the kind of landscape work you do...backpacking: Toho Shimo, Tachihara, or Chamonix

10ft from the car any monorail will do.

Having owned a Shenhao, Wista SP Metal field, Tachihara, Canham DLC and now Chamonix...my vote is for the Chamonix (value and price can't be beat!). I doubt you'll be using a lot of movements when doing landscape work and even then it won't be extreme movements and will most like be tilts - unless your preference is selective focus (rare in landscapes).

If i were you, I'd work on getting the lens line-up/collection and other neccessities and pick the cheapest camera you can find.



Been lurking & reading for a while soaking up the info.

Have been a dedicated FF digital user and moved on up to MF with a Mamiya RZ pro II. Now wanting for get the further gains that LF offer.

I have seen a couple of options for dipping my toe into the waters with 4x5 and would like your opinion. I've seen a Calumet view camera with 210mm Caltar lens and a Graflex crown graphic with a Wollensak Raptar 127mm lens.

I know that the Calumet has full movements but is heavier and the Graflex is a lighter folding (field?) camera with relatively little movements.

What to do:confused:

[Professional]

Depends on the kind of landscape work you do...backpacking: Toho Shimo, Tachihara, or Chamonix

10ft from the car any monorail will do.

Having owned a Shenhao, Wista SP Metal field, Tachihara, Canham DLC and now Chamonix...my vote is for the Chamonix (value and price can't be beat!). I doubt you'll be using a lot of movements when doing landscape work and even then it won't be extreme movements and will most like be tilts - unless your preference is selective focus (rare in landscapes).

If i were you, I'd work on getting the lens line-up/collection and other neccessities and pick the cheapest camera you can find.

So in my thread here i posted about an option to go with a kit or better to buy every parts [body, lens, board, holder,....] separately, and i am still waiting the answer, and i want to get my first large format if i can decide on one, in fact i am not looking for a lot of movements for landscapes or portraits, but my problem will be that i want to get a 4x5 LF with full complete movements for landscapes and anything until i will get a 8x10 LF to be full dedicated to landscapes and outdoors and keep that 4x5 full movements LF for studios and close-ups and so, and i am not sure if it is cheaper if i buy a kit and add few things or buy everything separately.

[rdenney]

Nice thread, new things to learn and i agree about the scanner, i bought Epson V750 and still i don't like most scans against my digital specially against my digital MF...

Variations of this theme get said a lot, I suppose. And I also suppose that on many levels it's right.

But there's something about even a 4x5 image, even when scanned on an Epson, and even when only printed to 16x20. It has a characteristic look. That look is not about the pixels, and probably can't even be seen at the pixel level. It might even be opposite of what can be seen at the pixel level. Maybe it's the smoothness of the rendering, maybe it's the unified visualization. I don't know.

The problem with stitching, for me, is that I'm not sure I have the skills to visualize the image after stitching, compared to viewing it on a single sheet of ground glass. Part of my visualization is an understanding of what will and won't be sharp in the image, and why. Those are the results of specific decisions.

The stitched image shown above illustrates my point. It is a lovely image--don't get me wrong--and I'd be proud to have produced it. But it does not look like an image made using a large-format camera to me. The stitched images I have produced (from multiple exposures with a small camera) have had that same look. Maybe they lack the same blend of detail, or the same rendering of detail across the image. Like I said, I don't know. I don't really want my images to look like a Google Maps aerial photo mosaic. Sometimes, though, techniques like this make something possible that wouldn't have been possible otherwise, of course. But I don't think I could use it as a primary approach.

I don't think that stitched look would result from turning, say, two 6x12 images into one 9x12 image by raising and lowering the back of a view camera and making a couple of exposures. That is still one unified image, visible on the 4x5 ground glass, by one lens pointed in one direction. The natural vignetting of the lens, the pattern of rendering across its image circle, the representation and management of the focus plane--all that would still be unified across the image. Even if we made exposures to the full limit of the lens's coverage (which would test the movements of a view camera), we would be putting together pieces of one image, not putting together different images.

The more photographs one makes in the field, the cheaper digital becomes and the more expensive film becomes for each of them. One huge advantage to digital is the tight feedback loop between idea and realization, which allows a photographer to cover a lot of ground in a hurry. With large format, one does not use the empirical feedback approach ("let's see if this works..."). Rather, one predicts, through an understand of the mechanisms and a command of technique, the outcome of the process. The predictive approach might need only a handful of exposures to explore the photographer's vision that day. The difference in the resulting volume of images helps balance the costs somewhat.

Also, people account for their costs in different ways. Many of us are middle-aged bearded throwbacks who have worked in other careers long enough to allow us to explore this activity without worrying about the pennies. Some of us are brand new at photography and adulthood, and the pennies are still scarce. I'm in the former group, which means that minutes are more precious than pennies. I know there are guys who say that stitching images is just a matter of throwing them into software, pushing the button, and coming back the next day. But it has never been that way for me. And the time I spend making stitches work at the pixel level (and if we aren't going to work at the pixel level, why bother?) is time I'd much rather be spending learning how to manipulate the tonalities of the image to achieve my visualization.

Most of us have found our own way, and are happy with the conclusions that have worked for us. We argue for those approaches with those who ask innocent questions. But the truth is that our conclusions may not even be right for us, let alone for someone with a completely different mix of objectives, experiences, and resources.

In the end, though, we make choices that achieve our vision, and the wrong choices are those that interfere with whatever process will work for us to achieve that vision.

Rick "it's not about the pixels" Denney

[Professional]

Variations of this theme get said a lot, I suppose. And I also suppose that on many levels it's right.

But there's something about even a 4x5 image, even when scanned on an Epson, and even when only printed to 16x20. It has a characteristic look. That look is not about the pixels, and probably can't even be seen at the pixel level. It might even be opposite of what can be seen at the pixel level. Maybe it's the smoothness of the rendering, maybe it's the unified visualization. I don't know.

The problem with stitching, for me, is that I'm not sure I have the skills to visualize the image after stitching, compared to viewing it on a single sheet of ground glass. Part of my visualization is an understanding of what will and won't be sharp in the image, and why. Those are the results of specific decisions.

The stitched image shown above illustrates my point. It is a lovely image--don't get me wrong--and I'd be proud to have produced it. But it does not look like an image made using a large-format camera to me. The stitched images I have produced (from multiple exposures with a small camera) have had that same look. Maybe they lack the same blend of detail, or the same rendering of detail across the image. Like I said, I don't know. I don't really want my images to look like a Google Maps aerial photo mosaic. Sometimes, though, techniques like this make something possible that wouldn't have been possible otherwise, of course. But I don't think I could use it as a primary approach.

I don't think that stitched look would result from turning, say, two 6x12 images into one 9x12 image by raising and lowering the back of a view camera and making a couple of exposures. That is still one unified image, visible on the 4x5 ground glass, by one lens pointed in one direction. The natural vignetting of the lens, the pattern of rendering across its image circle, the representation and management of the focus plane--all that would still be unified across the image. Even if we made exposures to the full limit of the lens's coverage (which would test the movements of a view camera), we would be putting together pieces of one image, not putting together different images.

The more photographs one makes in the field, the cheaper digital becomes and the more expensive film becomes for each of them. One huge advantage to digital is the tight feedback loop between idea and realization, which allows a photographer to cover a lot of ground in a hurry. With large format, one does not use the empirical feedback approach ("let's see if this works..."). Rather, one predicts, through an understand of the mechanisms and a command of technique, the outcome of the process. The predictive approach might need only a handful of exposures to explore the photographer's vision that day. The difference in the resulting volume of images helps balance the costs somewhat.

Also, people account for their costs in different ways. Many of us are middle-aged bearded throwbacks who have worked in other careers long enough to allow us to explore this activity without worrying about the pennies. Some of us are brand new at photography and adulthood, and the pennies are still scarce. I'm in the former group, which means that minutes are more precious than pennies. I know there are guys who say that stitching images is just a matter of throwing them into software, pushing the button, and coming back the next day. But it has never been that way for me. And the time I spend making stitches work at the pixel level (and if we aren't going to work at the pixel level, why bother?) is time I'd much rather be spending learning how to manipulate the tonalities of the image to achieve my visualization.

Most of us have found our own way, and are happy with the conclusions that have worked for us. We argue for those approaches with those who ask innocent questions. But the truth is that our conclusions may not even be right for us, let alone for someone with a completely different mix of objectives, experiences, and resources.

In the end, though, we make choices that achieve our vision, and the wrong choices are those that interfere with whatever process will work for us to achieve that vision.

Rick "it's not about the pixels" Denney

Sorry, but i really didn't understand what is the point of all those words and statement [your post] is.

I don't know what to say, but i will be honest and will tell you that i do photography just for fun and really i don't care at all about the money i spent on it and i also never care what my level or skill will be or what i look for into photography, just do it for fun and i buy more and more and i never look at all people who says "It is not the gear, it is the photographer", as long i just do it for fun and enjoy i don't care much how my work should be, just i feel i want to test and experiment all the phormats and gear i can afford and enjoy, film or digital i don't care, all of you went with both no doubt and now you tell us new photographers to go with this or that, why not i try what you did to recommend us what you tell us now? i mean if you use large format and then telling me it will not do much for you, then how i can use large format for fun at least? or is it must i have serious works to choose one format over another? and at the end it seems it is a personal, one will recommend 4x5 this model, another will say i want 8x10, another one will say i want larger than 8x10, someone else will say i am happy with 6x12 or 6x9 or so, it seems everyone of you have a reason or purpose to choose a format, so what i can say if i don't have any reason or purpose just to have fun and collect?
I am a digital photographer and after about 9 digital cameras [including one digital MF] i decided to go with film [bought 2 film cameras last year and just started to shoot about 2 months ago and added a Holga 120WPC 3 months ago], and i also see something different look with film [maybe with LF more than MF] against digital, and the most i love my digital MF, and how many told me that film MF can be even better, so then LF will beat them all from all what i hear here and there, so that i want to go with LF and see by myself, and i will tell you honest, i have never seen one print done by LF camera yet, so i will be happy to see one print done by LF and see what is special and amazing with it over smaller format so then i can decide if i want to get LF or not, but for now i just hear all of you saying that LF is way better if done properly and say scanned with high end scanner or going with darkroom printing process, so i can't wait to try and see.

[rdenney]

Sorry, but i really didn't understand what is the point of all those words and statement [your post] is.

Much of my post was a not a response to what I quoted from your post, but to other responses in the thread. I intended no offense.

In this thread, many options have been presented, each of which has been defended by the person who suggested it. I defended using monorail view cameras as a starter, others defended field cameras. One person defended technical cameras as being distinct from view cameras. Then, one person defended the use of stitching with a smaller digital camera compared to a single image with a larger camera. Some might lose sight of a couple of important points in all of these suggestions:

1. Each choice must provide the tools to allow the photographer to realize his vision. Only the photographer can know what he or she intends, artistically and photographically, and thus only the photographer can know how the various alternatives might or might not support those intentions. Some folks with more limited experience might not know what to expect, and that's why these threads tend to present so many different points of view.

2. The differences between these approaches should be evaluated on photographic grounds more than on technical grounds. That was my main point in responding to your post, and your response to that seems to agree. The difference between a stitched image and a single image can be quite significant, especially when viewed as a series of decisions made by a photographer in response to a scene. The way of working with both can be even more significant. Only the photographer can know how he or she wants to work.

In your post, you describe how your previous experience with digital has not fulfilled either your intentions, or the way you would like to work. Your experience therefore reinforces my point.

Rick "who would love to spend time with a view camera in the UAE" Denney

[Professional]

Much of my post was a not a response to what I quoted from your post, but to other responses in the thread. I intended no offense.

In this thread, many options have been presented, each of which has been defended by the person who suggested it. I defended using monorail view cameras as a starter, others defended field cameras. One person defended technical cameras as being distinct from view cameras. Then, one person defended the use of stitching with a smaller digital camera compared to a single image with a larger camera. Some might lose sight of a couple of important points in all of these suggestions:

1. Each choice must provide the tools to allow the photographer to realize his vision. Only the photographer can know what he or she intends, artistically and photographically, and thus only the photographer can know how the various alternatives might or might not support those intentions. Some folks with more limited experience might not know what to expect, and that's why these threads tend to present so many different points of view.

2. The differences between these approaches should be evaluated on photographic grounds more than on technical grounds. That was my main point in responding to your post, and your response to that seems to agree. The difference between a stitched image and a single image can be quite significant, especially when viewed as a series of decisions made by a photographer in response to a scene. The way of working with both can be even more significant. Only the photographer can know how he or she wants to work.

In your post, you describe how your previous experience with digital has not fulfilled either your intentions, or the way you would like to work. Your experience therefore reinforces my point.

Rick "who would love to spend time with a view camera in the UAE" Denney

The only time i did a stitched from digital was when i was in USA last year [October], did few shots for stitching and still i didn't work on one [actually i did one stitched only quickly by a demo pano software then didn't do it again, i will try again later and do more workflow and see], but honestly i don't prefer to go with stitching, not in all cases it will work, i remember once when i was in New Zealand [2008] i did one pano work but i found that in some shots for stitching there are people moving and the beach of the ocean in background is moving and not sure if it will match with all stitching, so i prefer to go with one single shot or at least 2 if so, and i was thinking about to get a pano camera or doing a large format with 1-3 shots and try to have panos if possible good enough.

To be honest, until now i don't know what is the difference between a monorail camera or view camera or technical or whatever, and about those movements when it should be great feature [for still and studios and macros only or some architect./interior...], also what i have to consider about or to look at when i decide to get a large format?It seems if i didn't read enough about large format [and i have to order a book online which is painful from Amazon] or i have to read many threads here to get info or background about the mechanism of large format, but honestly i feel i don't care to read and just go with one good or recommended large format and learn on it and i am sure i will not regret it, i just worry i may spend months or years reading and wasting time not getting one yet, also what making me to think so seriously and so bad about large format now is that i will take a workshop in my country about darkroom, and i am sure they will talk about film [different formats including large formats] and going to developing/processing then printing, so i was thinking to get one large format now and learn on it while i am taking this workshop and then i learn and experiment by myself alone later after the workshop, just worry if i spend long time after the workshop without a LF then i may forget all the tips/steps [The workshop will be for 4 days, only Saturdays so 4 weeks, starting with coming Saturday 15th May].

[rdenney]

...i just worry i may spend months or years reading and wasting time not getting one yet...

Here's my suggestion: Get a used monorail camera and a used field camera, both of decent quality, and spend a couple of weeks playing with them. If they both have, as they should, International (also called Graflok) backs, they will accept the same accessories. Lens boards are cheap--spend a week with the monorail camera, and then move the lens to the board for the field camera and spend a week with it. Start with a 150mm plasmat like a Sironar or Symmar--the same lens will work on both cameras. This is the "normal" lens for 4x5. Get a loupe in the 4x to 6x range, and a dark cloth. I assume you already have a good tripod.

With each camera, give yourself an assignment. That assignment should include two scenarios: One that requires tilt to adjust the focus plane to something other than parallel to the film, and the other that requires shifts to correct perspective. For the tilt scenario, set the lens to wide open and open up the shutter. Work with the loupe on the ground glass, and tilt the lens or back until items on the focus plane are all sharp at wide-open aperture. That will require some fiddling--give yourself time and don't worry about how long it takes. Your reading will fill in the theory--the film, lens board, and focus planes should all intersect.

With the shift subject, find a tall building (shouldn't be a problem in UAE!) and position yourself just far enough away from it that it is possible to see all of it on the ground glass. Then, adjust the camera so that the film plane is vertical, and then shift the lens to bring the building into view. This requires less fiddling, but still give yourself time.

It almost doesn't even matter if you make photographs at this point. Once you have the image on the ground glass, and it is focused and what you intend even when viewed using a loupe, then the exercise is done. Don't forget to travel to your subjects in the way you intend to in the future, so that the relative convenience of these different camera types will become clear to you.

A week spent playing with each camera while exploring these sorts of scenarios will teach you more than you could learn in a year of reading a book. At the end of a couple of weeks, you'll probably have formed an opinion as to which camera you prefer. When that conclusion becomes clear to you, sell the other one.

You might also find that the field camera is good at some things and the rail camera others, so that you are tempted to keep both. Compared to what you have already spent on digital gear, this is a minuscule cost.

One great advantage to large-format equipment that is NOT true with digital equipment, is that the price you pay for used equipment will hold its value pretty well. That price has already diminished about as much as it can without being given away. It is really cheap enough for people such as yourself to buy based on pure speculation.

Once you use these cameras for a little while, you'll know what you want more clearly than you can ever learn from reading books or this forum, and then you can spend as much as you want with confidence.

Rick "thinking both cameras together would cost less than a mid-price DSLR, with very little compromise on quality" Denney

[Professional]

Here's my suggestion: Get a used monorail camera and a used field camera, both of decent quality, and spend a couple of weeks playing with them. If they both have, as they should, International (also called Graflok) backs, they will accept the same accessories. Lens boards are cheap--spend a week with the monorail camera, and then move the lens to the board for the field camera and spend a week with it. Start with a 150mm plasmat like a Sironar or Symmar--the same lens will work on both cameras. This is the "normal" lens for 4x5. Get a loupe in the 4x to 6x range, and a dark cloth. I assume you already have a good tripod.

With each camera, give yourself an assignment. That assignment should include two scenarios: One that requires tilt to adjust the focus plane to something other than parallel to the film, and the other that requires shifts to correct perspective. For the tilt scenario, set the lens to wide open and open up the shutter. Work with the loupe on the ground glass, and tilt the lens or back until items on the focus plane are all sharp at wide-open aperture. That will require some fiddling--give yourself time and don't worry about how long it takes. Your reading will fill in the theory--the film, lens board, and focus planes should all intersect.

With the shift subject, find a tall building (shouldn't be a problem in UAE!) and position yourself just far enough away from it that it is possible to see all of it on the ground glass. Then, adjust the camera so that the film plane is vertical, and then shift the lens to bring the building into view. This requires less fiddling, but still give yourself time.

It almost doesn't even matter if you make photographs at this point. Once you have the image on the ground glass, and it is focused and what you intend even when viewed using a loupe, then the exercise is done. Don't forget to travel to your subjects in the way you intend to in the future, so that the relative convenience of these different camera types will become clear to you.

A week spent playing with each camera while exploring these sorts of scenarios will teach you more than you could learn in a year of reading a book. At the end of a couple of weeks, you'll probably have formed an opinion as to which camera you prefer. When that conclusion becomes clear to you, sell the other one.

You might also find that the field camera is good at some things and the rail camera others, so that you are tempted to keep both. Compared to what you have already spent on digital gear, this is a minuscule cost.

One great advantage to large-format equipment that is NOT true with digital equipment, is that the price you pay for used equipment will hold its value pretty well. That price has already diminished about as much as it can without being given away. It is really cheap enough for people such as yourself to buy based on pure speculation.

Once you use these cameras for a little while, you'll know what you want more clearly than you can ever learn from reading books or this forum, and then you can spend as much as you want with confidence.

Rick "thinking both cameras together would cost less than a mid-price DSLR, with very little compromise on quality" Denney

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=56315&page=5

I am still waiting the answer of this, also where i can find a good used LF [with all accessories] to play with? I was thinking to go with two different LF cameras and see, but ofcours if i will do that then i will go with used, or maybe buy one new cheap if available and one used, but i may take time to check for every accessories independently, also i may get one LF which is not good enough [with so limited movements] and then i regret it and i try another model [but then i found that it is heavy maybe] and so, for now i don't worry much about the weight but not sure if the movement if limited will be an issue for me in my test time, also which those 2 different LF cameras i should get? there are many options and i don't know really which i should go with.

[rdenney]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=56315&page=5

I am still waiting the answer of this, also where i can find a good used LF [with all accessories] to play with? I was thinking to go with two different LF cameras and see, but ofcours if i will do that then i will go with used, or maybe buy one new cheap if available and one used, but i may take time to check for every accessories independently, also i may get one LF which is not good enough [with so limited movements] and then i regret it and i try another model [but then i found that it is heavy maybe] and so, for now i don't worry much about the weight but not sure if the movement if limited will be an issue for me in my test time, also which those 2 different LF cameras i should get? there are many options and i don't know really which i should go with.

www.keh.com. Call them on the phone with your list. They don't have many field cameras right now, so you may want to keep an eye on the for-sale forum here or just buy a new Shen-Hao from Badger (just the camera, plus one lens board). I would recommend against buying lenses new as part of a kit, unless you must have new stuff. The price of used lenses is so low, and the quality of lenses made in the last 20-30 years so high, that it just doesn't make sense until you know exactly what you want and need.

Shopping in the UAE is quite amazing, but it serves those who want the latest technological innovations, not those who are interested in more traditional approaches and equipment. You will have to buy from a U.S. or European source, and I submit the better prices are in the U.S.

For the monorail view camera, I would go with something like a Sinar F.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Large-Format-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-LF029990238970?r=FE

You will need a Sinar lens board with hole for the shutter on the lens you choose--the KEH salesperson will know what you need, and they will probably have it. You'll probably need a board with a 35mm hole for #0 shutter, which is what most 150mm plasmats are mounted in. I see half a dozen 150mm f/5.6 plasmat lenses on KEH, including a Fujinon, Nikkor, and two Rodenstocks (one labeled Sinaron and one labeled Sironar--both the same thing). Any of these would be excellent. They are all mounted in Copal #0 shutters. The prices range from the low 200's to the high 300's.

The board will be under $50.

Initially, you can use your digital camera as a meter. You'll need a cable release, some film holders, a changing tent, a dark cloth, and so on, as listed in the other thread. You would be better off buying these separately rather than in a kit. If you have a room in your house with no windows and can block all light, you don't need the changing tent to start with.

You will also need a lab that can process sheet film. Do figure that bit out before investing in equipment. Dubai and Abu Dhabi are large cities, but even in the U.S. most of us have to send our film to a lab in another city for processing, or we have to do the processing ourselves. Mailorder processing may be too inconvenient for you.

Rick "who has seen the shopping options in Dubai in the last several months" Denney

[Chris Strobel]

But stitching is not going to replace a big piece of film, or a P65 digital back.

For subjects that have lots of movement like we've discussed already :) But stitching can not only replace a big piece of film or a P65 digital back for static subjects, but easily surpass them for resolution, think Max Lyons http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/ Of course then you could always stitch frames with that P65+ or with enough computer power multiple Drum Scanned 8x10 sheets :D

To the OP, I bought the Shen-Hao 4x5 kit with the Nikkor-W 150mm from Jeff at Badger Graphics about 4 years ago, and have been absolutely 100% satisfied with its functionality, its also very pretty :)

[adonis_abril]

If you can find a cheap kit with 150mm that would be a deal, but you should be able to find separate parts cheap as well... the idea is that you'll end up wanting more out of a lens line up than what a "kit" offers.

It sounds to me like you want to buy a studio camera (monorail), then use it for landscapes. Monorails work fine for landscapes - Arcaswiss F Line comes to mind, it's considered a "field" monorail and has extensive movements...maybe the rise/fall isn't as great but you haven't mentioned using it for architecture.

Most first-timers in Landscape LF always want a camera that covers full-movement (I'm guilty as charged!), however, soon find out they're using very little, if any, of such features for subject they're shooting...**I do use rear tilts a lot, so a folding field camera always suffice...your best bet is the the F line mentioned above.



So in my thread here i posted about an option to go with a kit or better to buy every parts [body, lens, board, holder,....] separately, and i am still waiting the answer, and i want to get my first large format if i can decide on one, in fact i am not looking for a lot of movements for landscapes or portraits, but my problem will be that i want to get a 4x5 LF with full complete movements for landscapes and anything until i will get a 8x10 LF to be full dedicated to landscapes and outdoors and keep that 4x5 full movements LF for studios and close-ups and so, and i am not sure if it is cheaper if i buy a kit and add few things or buy everything separately.

[Professional]

In fact i don't know which LF i should get, let's say i am open to any choices for a LF, i think if i want to start with 4x5 first then i don't mind to get any 4x5 LF, so i make that up to you to recommend me one.

[rdenney]

In fact i don't know which LF i should get, let's say i am open to any choices for a LF, i think if i want to start with 4x5 first then i don't mind to get any 4x5 LF, so i make that up to you to recommend me one.

Okay, let's do this one question at a time, then.

What do you want to take pictures of?

Rick "always a good first question" Denney

[Professional]

Okay, let's do this one question at a time, then.

What do you want to take pictures of?

Rick "always a good first question" Denney

Landscapes, portraits [in studio but mostly candid], and some outdoor as cityscape and maybe sometimes architecture, but i will not put architecture as main because i think from what i read here it need some movements, but landscapes and portraits are two main categories.

[Struan Gray]

My advice would be to get a reasonably good camera and start taking photos. Refine your equipment choices later when you know what you want. In today's market, and with the information available here and elsewhere online, the chances of being put off LF photography completely because of a disastrous choice are pretty small.

I started with a monorail (a Sinar Norma) because I had handled one at work and I knew I could cope with the logistics. I bought a kit, used, which gave me a lot of toys to try out, and which saved me money over buying individual items. I recently bought another comprehensive kit because it contained some lenses I want to play with, and it happened to include a Toyo 45A, a good basic field camera. I've been having fun seeing if my prejudices are confirmed by experience.

When I started I was surprised to learn that I use more movements than most other people, even for landscapes. I still do. I also found myself using long lenses more than I anticipated, and mucking about with camera mechanics - adding oddball lenses and mounting smaller cameras on the back. All of which means that the monorail is still the best choice for me. I had hoped the field camera would dramatically change the logistics of photographing, but the change isn't dramatic enough to win me over.

I like the compactness of the Toyo when folded, but the weight difference is too small to matter once the whole LF kit is assembled. I like the quick setup and the viewing hood for straight-on shots, but I have my routines pretty down pat with the Norma so the total setup-shoot-stripdown times are not significantly different, and the difference disappears if I use tilts or swings. I can work out of a slightly smaller bag with the Toyo, and get away with a more versatile tripod head, but again, the differences are not great. All in all, the field camera does make life easier, but not to the degree that, say, an MF SLR would do.

So, my experience is that any reasonable camera is better than no camera at all. I ended up taking photographs with LF which are very different from those I expected, and which do not neatly fit the usual pros-and-cons arguments about which camera is better suited to particular tasks. In my case the versatility of a monorail was and is worth the minor differences in logistics and ease of use.

[Professional]

OK, thank you very much!

[rdenney]

My advice would be to get a reasonably good camera and start taking photos. Refine your equipment choices later when you know what you want. In today's market, and with the information available here and elsewhere online, the chances of being put off LF photography completely because of a disastrous choice are pretty small.

I was pondering my response, and I'm glad Struan got there first.

My response would have said basically the same thing: When your objectives are as wide-open as yours are, just buy something and learn to use it. Monorail, field camera, Speed Graphic, Razzle--doesn't really matter. Don't spend a lot, because you may change your mind. Buy something used, so that if you later decide to sell it you'll get more of your investment back.

My two-week test is for someone who understands what large format is about, but who is wondering whether a rail or field camera will suit them best. For someone who doesn't understand (yet) what large format is about, just buy something decent and start using it.

The notion that you can't really go wrong helps. My first large-format camera was a Newton NueVue. It is perhaps one of the most dreadful view cameras ever produced (though I'm sure there are those who wax nostalgic about them). It was heavy, limited, clunky, and unreliable. As bad as it was, it still failed to discourage me to the point that I gave up on it.

These days, those sorts of mistakes are hard to make. That NueVue was $200 when I bought it in the early 80's, with a lens, and I still have the lens. Quality alternatives were far more expensive, and I had far less money to spend. Now, you can buy a high-quality Sinar F or Cambo with a normal lens for under $500--even less than that NueVue cost in real dollars.

If the large-format bug gets you, then you'll quickly learn what many of us know: One camera does not do it all. The studio and occasional architecture camera won't do that well for candids, and for that something like a Graphic or a Razzle would be more ideal. If you really explore all those objectives with large format, you'll end up with more than one camera. Where you start doesn't matter that much--just start.

Rick "just do it" Denney

[Professional]

I was pondering my response, and I'm glad Struan got there first.

My response would have said basically the same thing: When your objectives are as wide-open as yours are, just buy something and learn to use it. Monorail, field camera, Speed Graphic, Razzle--doesn't really matter. Don't spend a lot, because you may change your mind. Buy something used, so that if you later decide to sell it you'll get more of your investment back.

My two-week test is for someone who understands what large format is about, but who is wondering whether a rail or field camera will suit them best. For someone who doesn't understand (yet) what large format is about, just buy something decent and start using it.

The notion that you can't really go wrong helps. My first large-format camera was a Newton NueVue. It is perhaps one of the most dreadful view cameras ever produced (though I'm sure there are those who wax nostalgic about them). It was heavy, limited, clunky, and unreliable. As bad as it was, it still failed to discourage me to the point that I gave up on it.

These days, those sorts of mistakes are hard to make. That NueVue was $200 when I bought it in the early 80's, with a lens, and I still have the lens. Quality alternatives were far more expensive, and I had far less money to spend. Now, you can buy a high-quality Sinar F or Cambo with a normal lens for under $500--even less than that NueVue cost in real dollars.

If the large-format bug gets you, then you'll quickly learn what many of us know: One camera does not do it all. The studio and occasional architecture camera won't do that well for candids, and for that something like a Graphic or a Razzle would be more ideal. If you really explore all those objectives with large format, you'll end up with more than one camera. Where you start doesn't matter that much--just start.

Rick "just do it" Denney

Today i will take a workshop and see what the lecturer will say about film and large format, maybe he will say something as you all said already and maybe i can ask him and then i want to see his answer, also if he is using a large format then i will see what is his experience and recommendations, in all cases it seems i will buy it sooner or later by next week, and i think i will go with the kit first and later i can get something else if that kit is limiting me or i need something else, it is just a matter of time and i am not in rush, i looked and have read about large format since 2008 and now i reached my last station.