PDA

View Full Version : Large & Medium Format



cakemuffin
3-Oct-2010, 04:00
Hi everyone,

I'm trying to figure out if I want to buy a large format, or a medium format camera. I've read some of the guides and posts here, but I have by no means a comprehensive overview yet.

I live in Switzerland, and I don't know how easily I can find supplies here (for either large or medium), like film, or get it developed (which might also be very expensive).

Looking through Steve Simmons' book, the photos are amazing. I love the flexibility, like adjusting the shape to take a photo of that building (see the attachment). Is there a big difference between view and monorail for this? A used Tachihara, or Sinar F1, or something along those lines ($400) would be within my budget, and then a lens, which I probably have to order from the US.

I'm interested in landscape and architecture, and possibly portraits.

For medium format, I have been looking at the Mamiya 6. I like the square photos. Film rolls certainly make things easier, though I really wouldn't mind the effort/load of a large format camera. The travel reports make it seem manageable, and, after all, you're going to take photos and not something else.

I'm also a sucker for Polaroid, and that would go well with a large format. But I am also slightly worried about bringing the large format camera into buildings, temples areas, since it's often forbidden to bring tripods, no problem with a medium format camera here.

I'm looking for some hints, things to consider and think about, or maybe if someone switched from medium to large, or the other way around, and why. I know there is no right or wrong, but it's hard to choose if you hadn't had experience with either. Of course I can always try both, but that's not within my possibilities at the moment.

Thanks!

msk2193
3-Oct-2010, 05:05
Hello Cakemuffin,

Depending on what you want to photograph, I would go with both options.

The Mamiya 6 is a wonderful camera, but you will not be able to focus very near; so close ups of people is almost a no-no with this camera. You will still need a tripod if you want a lot of depth-of-field and stop down the camera to f/16 or so.

If you like to photograph landscapes, I would opt for the large format first, and when you can afford a medium format camera go for that later. If you travel frequently, I would look into a wooden or metal field camera that folds into a small package.

There should be no problem geting supplies in the larger cities in CH. Both Kodak and Fuji have Swiss distribution centers, and i am sure you can call them to find out more about film and developing capabilities in CH.

Check out some local fairs of photo equipment, there is always an opportunity to buy something at a decent price - if you have studied the going rates of equipment on e-bay and this forum.

Good luck.

Sirius Glass
3-Oct-2010, 06:13
A Hasselblad 500 series, MF cameras, would allow you to have a camera you could walk around with, use for landscapes, portraits, ... Later if you wanted movements you could use the same lenses with a Hasselblad Flexbody. The movements of a Flexbody are more limited than a LF camera.

You have to look at what type of photography you are interested in. How much you will use the rise, shift, and tilt movements. Will you use it for sightseeing or traveling? What size prints will you make? Will you do your own processing or use commercial labs? Only you can answer these questions. Bring the answers back here and then we can provide better advise.

Steve

cakemuffin
3-Oct-2010, 06:50
Michael, thank you for your reply. I will try to find some more information about the situation here in Zurich. A wooden field camera (Tachihara?) was definitely something I would be aiming for. Would you still be able to do what is shown in the attachment in my first post with a field camera? Or is that too much movement?

Steve, let me answer the questions.
It's hard to say how much I will rise, shift and tilt movements, since I never had to chance to do so. But seeing photos taken with those, I am more than excited. It must be fantastic for architecture, and I've grown fond of that.
Sightseeing. I am planning to go back to Japan and China for an extended period, and stay with friends, so I'll have a home to keep everything, and take trips from there.
Prints, I haven't thought about that much. Probably regular size to start with, but from what I've read, both medium and large should be more than "good enough" to produce even huge prints. I would definitely like to use a slide projector (if that's possible at all?).
I'll be using a commercial lab I think, but I might have access to a lab where I can do my own processing, but that's not that important to me at the moment. I love Polaroid also.

Thank you guys, it's really appreciated.

Sirius Glass
3-Oct-2010, 07:56
Slides:

35mm => easy to get slide projectors, processed slides come mounted.
120 => projectors are much harder to find and can be expensive for a good one. You will have to mount slides yourself, probably in glass
LF => Others will more experience should jump in here.

Travel:

35mm => easy
120 => easy
LF => depends on whether you are using a press camera [Graphic, Linhof] or a field camera. You may need a tripod with a press camera; you will need a tripod with a field camera. You will need a folding changing room http://www.freestylephoto.biz/25001-Photoflex-Changing-Room or a tent http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/172903-REG/Harrison_1000.html for loading film into holders. Others will more experience should jump in here.

Steve

jeroldharter
3-Oct-2010, 08:20
You don't mention a budget. Depending on your constraints with a budget, I suggest getting both. Medium format has never been cheaper. The Mamiya 6 and 7 are relatively pricey though. You could get a Bronica system for a very low amount (or Pentax 67 which I use).

For large format, get a simple field camera. You could buy a Shen Hao or Chamonix new for not very much, plus just one lens to start and a light meter.

You also did not mention a darkroom. Perhaps you are going to scan the negatives. You don't need much more than a closet to develop megatives.

The first cameras you get will not be your last. All of the recent vintages of the major brands are good enough to get started. Ideally, your largest budget item would be film!

cakemuffin
3-Oct-2010, 09:12
Jerold, I think I want to spend something like $800-$1000 for gear. Tachihara, Shen Hao and Chamonix seem to be around $500-$800, and then hopefully I could buy a lens with what's left (is that possible?). Those three seem to start to look very nice, since they are also light. I know someone in Shanghai, maybe he can order a Shen Hao for me. Does Tachihara have a website? I also have friends in Japan (near Osaka). If anyone has information about buying used ones in Switzerland, that would be great.

For medium format I might be willing to spend a little more, considering the film and developing is going to be cheaper. Or I could buy a very cheap one, like you suggested, just to get started, and save for a Mamiya 6.

I have a bathroom with no windows, might be enough at night. :)

Tobias Key
3-Oct-2010, 10:01
I would look at the British dealers first if you are in Switzerland. The prices in the US are better but the postage and import duty can wipe out the advantage. You can get British dealers to send you things via surface mail. Ffordes
www.ffordes.co.uk (http://www.ffordes.co.uk) has a great choice of medium format and large format gear and is very reputable.

Bear in mind that with large format, the cost of the accessories to make a camera usable are a significant extra cost. So budget for some film holders, a cable release, a loupe, a focussing cloth and some kind of film changing bag. Remeber if you buy a lens you'll have to add the price of a lens board. My monorail cost £350 but the accessories added another £200 (10 film holders, a focussing cloth, a calumet changing room and a hard case to carry it all in). Luckily I already had a cable release and and a loupe but still, to give myself a usable camera I had to spend over half of the price I paid initially.

wwilliams
3-Oct-2010, 10:48
You may be asking for things which are mutually incompatible. I am an architect and have tried almost every camera to capture builidngs and have come to some (often disapointing) conclusions. To start with, a way to shifit the image is important if you don't want to live with a lot of foreground distractons and don't want to correct distortion digitally. The only practical way to do this off tripod - and it's not great - is training yourself to hand hold a 35mm class (film or digital) and use a perspective control lens.

If you can use a tripod, roll film in a 6x7 or 6x9 format will yield very high quality, indistinguishable from 4x5 (9x12) in a print up to about 16x20 inches. However roll film cameras capable of shifting are expensive and heavy so it probalbly makes more sense to use a 4x5 (9x12) camera with a roll film back. The problem is that your will need at least a 65mm lens and preferably a 58 (to get the equivelent of 90mm on a 4x5). With such a short lens you need a bag bellows - often not available on foldig wood cameras.

Given your situaton I think I woudl try to pick up a Fuji GSW 6x9 which has a 65mm lens and old view camera (maybe sinar or linhof) with a bag bellows (or buy a shen-hao which has a bag baellows option) and a good 65mm 5.6 lens. Use both cameras for a while and see which one yields the results you want for the effort wyoiu wantto invest. The roll film is much easier to use than sheet film, shoudl be available and is easily scanned to do digital printing. At the end of a year I think you'll know if either (or both) cameras are meeting your needs.

cakemuffin
3-Oct-2010, 11:54
Thanks Tobias. You're right, it's probably going to be more costly than I thought, especially if I want to buy a new camera.


Wwiliams, thank you for your post. I didn't know know there was an option to put a film roll back onto a large format camera. A Shen-Hao with a Roll Film Back might be a great solution, because it would also allow me to use 120 film (which is a lot cheaper, easier to get and develop), while still having the option to use 4x5. You mean this one? With a bag? It says 50mm-190mm. Do you often use shifting when taking photos of buildings?

msk2193
3-Oct-2010, 12:58
A Shen Hao is a wonderful camera. A lot sturdier back than the Tahcihara, especially if you are going to use roll film backs. I used to have the Tachi, but sold it for a more rigid system.

John Koehrer
3-Oct-2010, 14:02
Some of the field cameras won't have movements on the rear standard that was used in the 4th picture in your attachment. Actually I think, most of them.
The nice thing about roll film backs on a 4X5 is the ability to use different formats like 6x6,6x7,6x9 & 6x12 dependent on the back. This would give you the ability to use one lens & crop by changing backs.
If you don't use long lenses or do close up work the camera you referred to would work, but a 190mm is just slightly long on 4x5 & you may run out of extension on that camera.
IMO the Mamiya 7/7ll would be a better choice for MF. I don't care for the square.

cakemuffin
3-Oct-2010, 14:24
John, I think he raised the front of the camera and then titled the front a little bit backwards to get rid of the vignetting. As far as I understand. That should be fine with most field cameras?

I totally agree. I think there is a $300 price tag on the roll film back for a Shen-Hao, but considering I would be able to shoot 4x5, and then 6x6...6x12, it's worth it, if I go in that direction. I think the lenses (65mm or 58mm) are going to be terribly expensive though. :(

engl
3-Oct-2010, 16:26
For 6x9, how about a 65/5.6 Super Angulon or Fujinon SWD? They are not often available at 300-400$, and with 170mm image circle have good coverage for 6x6 to 6x12. It also covers 4x5 with minor movements.

Im not sure why you want to use a roll film back on a 4x5 camera though :) It will give you the bulk of 4x5, higher initial cost than 4x5 (roll film back, fewer and more expensive lens options), inferior resolution to 4x5 and it still will not be hand holdable.

Id probably get two cameras, one for tripod (4x5) and one (MF) you can bring into the places where tripods can't be brought. Perhaps a Shen Hao with a 90mm lens for the 4x5, and a Bronica ETRSi or Pentax 645/6x7 for the MF camera. Without a tripod, you are probably not going to be shooting at the limit of any MF gear in anything but the best light, so Id even consider a 35mm or digital camera.

Sirius Glass
3-Oct-2010, 17:36
I too question why someone would use 120 film in a 4x5. If you are using a 4x5, shoot 4x5. If you are using a MF camera shoot 120.

Steve

rdenney
3-Oct-2010, 17:50
There are reasons to use roll film in a view camera. They are:

1. You get the image management features of a view camera, and

2. You get the convenience, compact storage, daylight handling, and economy of roll film.

Medium-format view cameras are rare, and most are more expensive than many excellent 4x5 view cameras that are being given away these days. Used roll film holders are not expensive--even a used Sinar Vario will be 10 or 15 cents on the retail dollar. There are medium-format cameras that have some limited movement capability, but they are expensive, expensive, expensive.

I own many medium-format cameras and I use them lots. I even own several perspective-control lenses. But I don't use them when I want the image-management capability of a view camera.

Rick "now that Quicloads are gone, anyway..." Denney

Sirius Glass
3-Oct-2010, 18:16
My point is that if you are shooting roll film why carry the bulk of a view camera.

That is why I have 35mm cameras, MF cameras and LF cameras. The right tool for each job.

Steve

sanking
3-Oct-2010, 18:26
My point is that if you are shooting roll film why carry the bulk of a view camera.

That is why I have 35mm cameras, MF cameras and LF cameras. The right tool for each job.

Steve

I believe what Rick meant by image management was, among other things, perspective control and control of the plane of sharpness with shifts and tilts. Not many MF cameras have that, although with wide angle lenses and the use of perspective controls in PS I personally don't find many situations where these controls would be necessary.

Sandy

biglewsmi
3-Oct-2010, 18:34
As you stated in your original post you cannot afford both format options at this time. With that in mind I would say start with the medium format camera system, because you will be able to do all of the things that you stated you were looking to do without the extra bulk of large format. Just because you are shooting architecture or landscape doesn't automatically mean that you require the percise controls of a large format camera. Medium format can turn out fantastic pictures of those subjects. In a lot of ways you may find that you will use your medium format gear more often than if you had to drag out the large format equipment. I have both formats and the only time I take out the large format gear is to photograph something that I've pre-scouted and determined how to shoot. For me walking and exploring while taking pictures is always done with 35mm, medium format, and sometimes digital, yes digital. Don't get me wrong I love my large format, but it doesn't make sense for everything or for everyone.

So I guess a good question to ask yourself is how do you like to shoot? Do you like to wonder around and take shots as you see them, or do you like to search out sites and visualize the shoot to take at a later time. Nothing says you cannot wonder and shoot with a large format camera,some folks do it, but it sure is easier with a smaller camera. Have you given thought to film developing and printing?

rdenney
3-Oct-2010, 19:09
I believe what Rick meant by image management was, among other things, perspective control and control of the plane of sharpness with shifts and tilts. Not many MF cameras have that, although with wide angle lenses and the use of perspective controls in PS I personally don't find many situations where these controls would be necessary.

No, not always necessary. But when I'm shooting 6x12 (which is, after all, a roll-film format), I find I use tilts as often as not to manage the focus plane. Sure, I could use a dedicated 6x12 camera, but I would miss having that control. And there are times even with my Pentax 6x7 that I wished I had tilt.

But I was not arguing for the use of a 4x5 camera with roll film holders as a good alternative for medium format, I was arguing against the flat generalizations suggesting that shooting roll-film formats on a 4x5 camera is dumb. There are good reasons to do so, at least occasionally.

And if you do want view camera controls with roll film, a 4x5 camera is not really much bulkier than a medium-format view camera, and the medium-format view cameras on the market (with a few ancient exceptions) are quite expensive compared to fine, used 4x5's.

Rick "who uses roll film formats in his Sinar about as often as 4x5" Denney

Steve Barber
3-Oct-2010, 22:03
My point is that if you are shooting roll film why carry the bulk of a view camera.

That is why I have 35mm cameras, MF cameras and LF cameras. The right tool for each job.

Steve

You have it backwards.

The question should be, "If you are carrying a view camera, why do you need to carry the bulk of a roll film camera system, as well?" Using roll film holders, you can avoid the extra bulk, weight, expense and bother while having the capability of any number of medium format cameras, anything from 6x7 through 6x9, 6x12 on up to 6x17, if you want.

Also, you completely ignore having the capability for medium format color slides while using your view camera. 6x7 color slides are the main reason I carry a roll film holder.

If it were not for the convenience of roll film cameras (gained with the loss of some capability) and the restrictions placed on possession and use of tripods, I am not sure I would have any use for my medium format cameras at all. I agree you should use the right tool for the job, but, for example; if you have a pair of vise grips, you probably can do without your pliers.

ZErvacic
4-Oct-2010, 02:25
I use Bronica MF SLR for years and printing on up to 30x40cm or 40x50cm (sometime square as I like square too) I found my Bronica is pretty good for me. However for quite some time I'm interested for LF since camera adjustments (rise/fall, swing, tilt, shift) and weird look of old, simple construction lenses. If I have same adjustments on my Bronica and can attach a simple lenses on it I'll probably wouldn't be interested for LF.

ki6mf
4-Oct-2010, 03:44
Big thing about LF over all other formats is you get best resolution and can make BIG prints. For B&W you vary development to change contrast for each individual sheet of film. If you do B&W in foll film you would carry interchangeable backs to achieve the same effect. If size of print is not important and portability is of interest MF may be the way to go.

Linhof
4-Oct-2010, 04:44
I may suggest a Fuji GX680 and shoot with 120/220 films in 6x9 format. Yes, this monster is heavy. When you put it on tripod then it becomes a wonderful camera with rise and fall in lens standard. The bellow used with extention rail (80mm) is very useful for close-up shooting. Lenses available in 50mm, 65mm, 80mm, 100mm, 120mm, 150mm, 180mm, 190mm, 210mm, 250mm, 300mm and 500mm. All of them are not so expensive and could be earily found in xbay. I own both GX680 and GX680III. They are my partners in film and digital back photography.

You may get more info from http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/gx680iii.shtml

engl
4-Oct-2010, 06:04
I did not mean to say that shooting 120/220 film on a 4x5 camera is a bad idea, I only meant that I was surprised the OP would want to do it. In the original post it was stated that the reasons for shooting medium format would be ability to shoot handheld, and that the inconvenience of 4x5 film was no big issue.

David Higgs
4-Oct-2010, 07:05
the great thing about these forums is the variety of views you get!

I have the Fuji 690 previously mentioned, and up to 16x20 even with an Epson scanner its up there with my Linhof 4x5. I only use LF if I need movements or want to print large, and even then it'll be scouted and planned usually using a digital M4/3rds, which I have to say is 'almost' as good as the MF up to 11x14 - I hope I don't get too chastised for that comment!

The answer to the original poster, comes mainly down to print size and need for movements. LF is lovely but it isn't easy, and there is a lot of aggrevation compared with MF and certainly with Dig.

If you don't print large there is little point, although to my mind the tonality on B+W prints always appears slightly better even at a small size using LF.

An MF back on 4x5 is great, it lets you practice movements and generally get into how to operate the camera without getting through lots of sheet film.

dave shutter
4-Oct-2010, 08:47
I have recently returned to the fold and faced the same dilemma. I have "stuck with" a 5x4and a Fuji 6x7 and am very pleased with the results.
I do know of a reasonable 5x4 light mono rail in good condition at a fair price.
Regards and good luck

al olson
4-Oct-2010, 09:10
If your interest is in using a roll film back and utilizing the movements of a large format camera, why not consider a used baby Linhof Super Technika. These cameras are easier to handhold and they usually came with a kit of three cammed lenses (mine has a 65, 105, and a 180).

An alternative would be a baby Speed Graphic. These have lens board movements, but are without back movement. The earlier ones are not suitable for a roll film back unless you want to adapt it to become a permanent fixture. Be sure to get a later model with a Graflok back.

I have a Super Technika (with Rollex film holder and double-sided film holders) and a pre-1940 Speed Graphic (I have a "23" Graphic back but never attached it, so I use it with double-sided film holders only), but I prefer working with the 4x5 sheets.

argos33
4-Oct-2010, 09:10
If it were me I would probably get a 4x5 field camera or lightweight monorail with a roll film back. That would cover most bases and then you can always pick up a MF camera after wards (money permitting), for those situations that require it. Although the Hasselblad series is great and has interchangeable lenses, the wide angle options are very expensive. I would suggest looking at the Fuji rangefinders, Mamiya RB & RZ67s, Mamiya 6, and Bronicas in terms of getting a lot for your money.

cakemuffin
4-Oct-2010, 10:41
So many replies! So much information! Thanks everyone.

The reason why I jumped on the idea of using a film roll back on a 4x5 is because I am slightly worried about the prices for 4x5 here in Switzerland. I found one store which processes one for $10, adding the material, that's $15 per shot, a bit too steep for me to be honest, especially at the beginning. I could processes myself, but I don't want to get in over my head right from the start.

I am really curious to work with shift and tilt, and as I learned here, there is not really a way around a 4x5 to do that (except for that Fuji GX680 camera, but it's expensive!).

I usually know when I will take pictures so I can bring gear, I wouldn't mind carrying heavy things. As I said above, I don't want to start everything at the same time, I think learning how to use a large/medium format camera is going to be challenging enough. I can always do processing later.

David Higgs: Yeah, I love that no one is zealous about it either. Just good inputs. Yes, it would be awesome for practice, that is what I was thinking.

al olson: "Baby Linhof Super Technika III", how much are these? Any idea where I could find one?

Van Camper: Good points. To be honest, at the moment, I am not so much worried about large prints yet. But I will definitely keep that in mind.

I think I'll look for a very cheap medium format camera to get used to all the stuff that comes with it, and keep an eye out for a cheap large format camera and accessories that I could pick up here somewhere. Someone has said that I can always later sell the gear again (especially if it's used) at a similar price, and buy "better" one.

Thanks so much everyone! :)

ornate_wrasse
4-Oct-2010, 11:13
Hi Cakemuffin,

Although I have the Mamiya 6 and really like the camera a lot, be aware that the three lenses for this camera are relatively slow, i.e. f3.5 or f4.0. I'm aware of the limitations and it doesn't bother me, but there are some who have given up on the camera due to the fact that there are no fast lenses available for it.

The lowest price I have seen the Mamiya 6 go for recently is about $1,000 with one lens, usually (though not always) with the 75mm lens.

Ellen

wwilliams
4-Oct-2010, 15:30
A few more words about roll film backs. They come in two flavors - one's that slide into a 4x5 like a film holder and ones that replace the ground glass assembly. Most roll film holders, and many of the best ones (horseman and wista) are of the latter type. Many fewer are the slide in types but they are much more convenient. The cambo/calumet fit almost all cameras, sinars are thick, finicky and expensive and the toyo & some linhof are very thick and don't fit all cameras. I woudl consider a cambo/calumet but they have an uneven reputation for quality.
Reasons to go with roll film are daylight loading, portability, less expensive processing and cheaper scanning by others. With indistinguishable quality from a 4x5 up to 16x20 these are all good reasons to go with a roll film approach when starting out.
I would stay away from the baby linhof or graphic since the front rise with a 65 mm lens is very limited by the bellows (less than 1 1/2 inch rise on either and probably closer to an inch with the bellows limit.
In a pinch I might consider a 65mm f8 but it will be darker, harder to focus and more limited in it's movements than a f5.6. Get one, see if you like it and get a Nikkor 65 f4.5 later. A nice thing about large format cameras is that there are endless upgrades and improvemnts (as you save up the money).

Jeff Keller
4-Oct-2010, 18:01
Al Olson's suggestion of a baby technika seems like one of the best matches to what you think you want. A similar camera is a Horseman VHR which can be bought used for less than $500. The main problem with them is the difficulty of using movements with very wide angle lenses. Using a roll film back with a 4x5 can also have similar problems. Most 4x5 cameras work fairly well with lenses longer than 72mm or 90mm but that isn't very wide for a 6x9 film size of a roll film holder.
Using perspective control lenses on a 35mm camera can be done handheld fairly easily. Using a baby technica or horseman VHR feels more like using a large format camera and with the larger film size, can yield larger prints. If you want perspective control with very wide angle lenses, 35mm is the best hand holdable choice. If you like the slow deliberate image capture of large format and don't need super wide angle you are likely to prefer a baby technica/horseman VHR camera.
Jeff Keller

Jeff Keller
4-Oct-2010, 18:40
A little more about 35mm perspective control: An Olympus OM1 (35mm film camera)can be bought used for less than $100. A used Olympus 35mm shift lens can be bought for less than $350. The lens can be used in manual mode on a Canon 5D by purchasing an inexpensive adapter. A used Olympus 24mm shift lens will probably cost over $1000. A Canon 17mm shift lens will cost over $2000.

sully75
4-Oct-2010, 18:58
For a medium format camera, I think it's hard to beat a Mamiya C330. Much cheaper than a Hassleblad, or basically anything else. Optical quality is awesome and they have certain advantages (built in bellows, lenses are compact) that other cameras don't.

rguinter
4-Oct-2010, 19:26
I think the OP said it best in his post 31... "So many replies! So much information!"

Everyone seems to want to overwhelm a newcomer with ideas and suggestions that would cost the poor guy ten times his original suggested budget.

I started photography in the early 1970s with a Canon AE1 35mm camera. My next step was MF and the next was LF. This was quite a typical way to go over time.

Now all well and good with all the suggestions above. Great stuff.

But another poster above (very early on in the thread I might add) also pointed out a significant issue with LF if one is to step directly into it... i.e., the cost of all the extras.

Film holders, heavy tripods, lenses, backpacks for carrying, changing tents or bags or a darkroom, dark cloths, filters, focusing loupe, etc., etc.

And then what? Once there is exposed LF film there is now the processing chemistry either doing it at home or having it done at a lab. Labs these days are getting fewer and further between all the time.

I can still get C-41 35-mm and 120-roll done in my own hometown but not so for anything else. And what does one do with C-41 once the negatives are developed?... have to get prints made to even see what you have. More costs. The main reason why I virtually never did negatives until scanner technology came along where I could afford to scan on my desktop.

So what is my suggestion?... print out the thread with all its suggestions and keep it handy for use in the future. There are some good suggestions in here.

But don't dive in to LF headfirst from the get-go. Go buy yourself a simpler system in 35-mm or 120 that fits your budget and get started making pictures that you can afford to process and print.

Otherwise I think you'll go broke and become disappointed long before you feel successful at making great photos.

Bob G.

sully75
4-Oct-2010, 20:51
I might agree with Bob. Given your budget, you might do well to get a good, not too expensive MF camera, a scanner and some film developing equipment.

My suggestions, on a budget:
Mamiya C330 and an 80mm lens (just one lens!! Don't be tempted by many lenses)
Epson 4990 (used, or even cheaper, an epson 4870)
Better Scanning Medium Format film holder
some stainless tanks and reels

You could get all that for well under $800 I think, and you'd be good to go.

rdenney
4-Oct-2010, 21:12
Most 4x5 cameras work fairly well with lenses longer than 72mm or 90mm but that isn't very wide for a 6x9 film size of a roll film holder.

I'm not trying to persuade the OP of anything--this is just a response to this statement.

"Most" is probably the correct word. But it may be a little scary for someone contemplating this approach. A Sinar F, for one, will readily handle lenses right down to a 47mm Super Angulon, and still provide movements. It does require the double-pleated Wide-Angle Bellows 2, and probably the non-metering back. And you have to raise both standards a bit to eliminate interference, and I think move them to the same side of the tripod clamp. But it does not require a recessed lens board. Even with the 47 focused at infinity, there is room for 6 or 8 degrees of tilt and shift limited only by coverage with that setup. For lenses that short, it doesn't take much tilt, particularly in the field. At six degrees of tilt, that lens will focus on a plane that is at right angles to the film plane and only about 18" away from the lens axis.

Only a dedicated medium-format monorail camera or a specialty camera like the Arc-body would provide more movements with lenses of that length, but those are much more expensive options.

Rick "who uses a 47 on a Sinar F frequently enough" Denney

cps
5-Oct-2010, 07:19
Cakemuffin, I think you are choosing the right approach. I very recently bought my first large format camera (a reasonably cheap Linhof Tech III), and I have also been wrestling with many of the exact same questions. It is all very fresh in my mind.

I think you will own and use both MF and LF cameras by the time you are done. Each has a very useful niche, and attempting to solve every photographic problem with one hybrid tool probably involves a lot of compromises. LF is a lot to bite off in one chunk, and as an earlier post mentioned, there are a lot of add-on costs to consider. Just setting up an elementary film work flow will be a non-trivial undertaking if you haven't already done it.

What Bob and Paul are saying here very much resonates to me. I personally started last year with a cheap MF system (RB67) and was so completely blown away by the resolution and dynamics of film scanned on an Epson flatbed compared to my older Canon digital, that I almost entirely stopped shooting digital. You can check out shots that people take with cameras like the old and cheap Mamiyas (C-330, RB67) on Flikr and see if that looks interesting to you.

The move to a film workflow was a big undertaking for me, and had a lot of start-up costs (even though I steered clear of a wet darkroom). Light meter: you _can_ use a digital slr for this if you have one, but it's heavy and clunky. A good dedicated meter can set you back a few hundred. Scanner: I got v700 on sale, and it is nice, but it was far from free. Lots of little things come up to spend money on, like a loupe to look at your slides or negatives, maybe a cheap light box to illuminate them, a solid storage box for your precious negatives, Betterscanning device and anti-Newton ring glass to make the scanning more reliable, etc. Each can be small potatoes, but they do add up surprisingly quickly.

The thing is, a lot of these things can be added over time as you shoot more and gain some experience with it, and once that workflow is up and running most of it ports to large format directly. My MF work has allowed me to figure out where to get my routine stuff processed, and where to take the critical work (not the same place). The RB67 has been a good and relatively simple system to train myself with the routine of using a manual system, and with the "details" of getting a well exposed negative (which I have definitely not mastered). I have set up a hybrid workflow, and I can report that a lot of time will be spent fiddling with getting the scanning system and photoshop tools to heel to your commands. I'm still on that particular learning curve.

But, your original post suggests a specific attraction to LF. I share that, as I'm guessing any poster here on this forum probably does. What Rick said about the roll film backs is also very true. My Linhof came with a creaky old 6x9 back, and I found it very useful to be able to spin a test roll of 120 through and drop that off down at the local lab to get processed for $5. Even at local costs considerably less than yours, the prospect of learning LF at $5-$7 per processed frame seems like not the way I want to go.

Though I like having the roll film back for my Linhof, it was not a goal. First, it is slightly awkward shooting this way compared to sheets. Most of the cheaper RF backs require you to swap out the ground glass before shooting. It's pretty trivial, but a bit of a pain compared to just slipping a sheet holder under the ground glass. And, as you have noticed, these roll film backs are not cheap. For the same money can get a complete starter MF system, and then you'll have something you can actually take pictures with.

I got the Linhof to shoot big film. My next step will be to buy a stack of cheap B&W film and some development tools that allow me to "learn with abandon".

Chris

cps
5-Oct-2010, 07:24
All,

By the way, I just want to say thank you to many posters here and in other parts of this forum for all the helpful comments over the years. I have lurked and learned a lot. Your work has inspired me to make the jump to LF, and your helpful approach has made it seem approachable.

Chris

Jeff Keller
7-Oct-2010, 12:06
Thanks for the details. The specs listed on the B&H website (F1, used cameras) show 83mm min with standard bellows, 60mm min with wide angle bellows, 30mm with recessed lens board & wide angle bellows ... but those limits may not require raising standards or other even relatively simple adjustments.

Jeff Keller


I'm not trying to persuade the OP of anything--this is just a response to this statement.

"Most" is probably the correct word. But it may be a little scary for someone contemplating this approach. A Sinar F, for one, will readily handle lenses right down to a 47mm Super Angulon, and still provide movements. It does require the double-pleated Wide-Angle Bellows 2, and probably the non-metering back. And you have to raise both standards a bit to eliminate interference, and I think move them to the same side of the tripod clamp. But it does not require a recessed lens board. Even with the 47 focused at infinity, there is room for 6 or 8 degrees of tilt and shift limited only by coverage with that setup. For lenses that short, it doesn't take much tilt, particularly in the field. At six degrees of tilt, that lens will focus on a plane that is at right angles to the film plane and only about 18" away from the lens axis.

Only a dedicated medium-format monorail camera or a specialty camera like the Arc-body would provide more movements with lenses of that length, but those are much more expensive options.

Rick "who uses a 47 on a Sinar F frequently enough" Denney

rdenney
7-Oct-2010, 13:49
Thanks for the details. The specs listed on the B&H website (F1, used cameras) show 83mm min with standard bellows, 60mm min with wide angle bellows, 30mm with recessed lens board & wide angle bellows ... but those limits may not require raising standards or other even relatively simple adjustments.

There is a difference between the "Wide Angle Bellows" and the "Wide Angle Bellows II". The former is the typical bag bellows. The latter is a very soft double-pleated bellows that will not interfere between the standards the way the regular bag bellows will. You can compress them right together and still have unlimited shift. With the regular wide-angle bellows, you have to pay attention to keep the pleat from binding between the standards, and they are much more stiff for shifting when tightly compressed. If they bind up between the standards, they'll push the standards apart, giving you downward tilt without the option.

Sometimes those specs include the metering back, and sometimes even the Sinar shutter. Both of those increase the distance between the film and the lens board.

The cheapie knock-off recessed boards do work. They need better flocking on their backside, but they have a square recess which is roomier than the Sinar round recess. But even with a 00 shutter, it's a tight fit. My fingers were too fat and I was glad not to have to use the recessed board after getting the WA Bellows II.

My camera has an F rear standard (non-metering back) and an F2 front standard. That may have an effect--the front standard has geared focus and can be racked back a bit on its rail mount. I haven't tried it with the F front standard and the WA Bellows II in combination.

Rick "for whom accommodating short lenses (affordably) was the reason for switching to the Sinar" Denney