Adding View Camera to MF

[lbenac]

Hello,

I have joined the forum in anticipation of making a move toward getting a view camera.

I am in no rush and I have on order "Using a View Camera" for a good read before making any move. I have a ground glass for my grand-father Icarette and some plate/sheet holders so that I can make baby steps using sheet film and GG focusing on 6.5x9

Beside I want to sell most of my 35mm collection and maybe some MF before investing in another system as I have an abundance of cameras/lenses even if I was to learn to shoot with both hands and feet (Pentax 645, 67, Hasselblad V, Autocord TLR, Kodak Medalist, Fujica GW/GSW 690 and Zeiss Icarette 551/2, that I all use with B&W films).
I develop my films and scan the negatives on a Nikon 8000 with sometime printing on Epson 2880 > smaller than 13x19

Lately, I have discovered several things:
1) I love the look of old lenses (Autocord, Medalist & Icarette)
2) Shift lens on my Pentax 67 and front shift on Zeiss Icarette
3) 35mm film even with excellent lenses does not cut it anymore for me and I need the tonality of 120

I shoot mostly landscape and cityscape www.LucBenacPhoto.com (http://www.LucBenacPhoto.com)
This turns me naturally toward either a Press or a Field Camera.

But one of the capability that I am after, is a large DOF for front object to background which I think requires a tilt back. This would exclude a Press camera.

I also shot a lot in portrait mode (more than 50% of my shots) which I think would require a rotating back.
So with all this a Field camera would be the best choice?

Because I already have a good quality scanner limited to 6x9 negative size, and I would like to be able to carry the system around, I am looking at a 6x9 field camera as a logical choice. That said my first reading bring the following arguments against 6x9:
1) Difficult to judge the effect of tilt/shift on a 6x9 GG
2) Lenses on a small negative are not up to the quality of a MF lens (I am not sure of this and I have no prior experience to judge by myself)

In addition, I do not want to invest much money in a (possibly) first LF system. That say I like a well made camera that last and I like a simple well conceived camera that is easy to use which usually translate into $$$$$.

There are abundances of choices out there ranging from old to new and from a few hundred to a few thousands. I am also leery of an impulse buy on a "good deal" - throw me the first stone :)
I am sure that like in MF everybody has his/her own favourite and as many different answers. I am somewhat hopeful to put to rest the 6x9 versus 4x5 debate in my head with some help and possibly get some pointers on a selection of camera and lenses that are a good value with a reasonable ease of use. The worst camera is the one that stays at home.

BTW I have a Berlebach 2032 tripod which would take a reasonable weight.

Thanks in advance for everybody that feels like dropping a line.

Cheers,

Luc

[Leigh]

Hi Luc,

... and welcome aboard.

The best advice I could give would be to borrow or rent equipment of the type you're considering and shoot with it.

Everyone is different, and what fits one person very well will be almost unusable for another.

After all, experimentation is part of the fun.

With any format I always suggest getting the best lenses you can afford. I always prefer to buy a good used lens over a new lens of lesser quality.

The other stuff that goes with the lens can be of any quality, as long as it's light tight.

Enjoy.

- Leigh

[Bill Burk]

Welcome Luc,

Your appreciation for older lenses might save you money. I also enjoy the soft corners a 135mm Tessar gives on 4x5. I picked up mine for $50 many years ago. You can probably get one for a very low cost.

If you have not yet, think about it before committing to a size. I committed myself to 4x5 film on 11x14 paper. It was a choice for me. But if you are still free, look at everything.

Take a look at Ken Lee's photos, his model's ankle bracelet details from 8x10 are stirring. You won't need any enlarger to make prints from large negatives. Again, you save money and make amazing negatives. How can you go wrong?

[grahamcase]

Hey Luc,

Welcome to the fold.

You will probably want something that is pretty easily moved from place to place, so yes, I think a field camera would be best for you. That's not to say that a field shooter can't shoot a monorail, and a studio user can't shoot a field camera; I am in the latter category!

I would definitely look into 4x5 if I were you - anything smaller just isn't worth it if you really want to take advantage of large format; I say this as someone who also shoots MF, a format I love!

I don't have any good advice for what you should be looking at, but Leigh makes several good points. Go to Beau Photo, as they have a great rental section. Also Leo's Cameras downtown is great for question asking, and random parts you may be missing. I think their prices on used equipment may be a bit more than you'll want to spend, but our Craigslist is good to peruse as you think about what you want.

Also, check your email :)

[Brian C. Miller]

Welcome, Luc! I see that you are in B.C. There are a number of forum members there, and maybe you can team up with somebody on a weekend sometime.

View cameras can give you a lot of options, and they don't have to be expensive.

Press and field cameras are very close relatives. I started with a Graflex Super Graphic, which I still have and use. I also now have a Toyo 45AX, which is a descendant of the Super Graphic. The 45AX has more movements than the SG, but I can still "fake" some of the 45AX movements on the SG, like back tilt. I loosen the tripod head, and tilt the camera backwards. Yes, that's how back tilt is done. Then I reposition the front lens by dropping the bed and adjusting the front standard as needed.

Neither camera is as flexible as a monorail, such as my Calumet Orbit (same model as used by Ansel Adams, which shows what a cheapskate he was). I bought mine years ago for under $200, and it's still working fine. The camera is a little heavier than the 6pound SG or 45AX, but it also has a nice handle on it.

Take your time and look around. There are good deals that pop up, and you'll be happy with what you buy.

[rdenney]

...
3) 35mm film even with excellent lenses does not cut it anymore for me and I need the tonality of 120

...But one of the capability that I am after, is a large DOF for front object to background which I think requires a tilt back. This would exclude a Press camera.

I also shot a lot in portrait mode (more than 50% of my shots) which I think would require a rotating back.
So with all this a Field camera would be the best choice?

To the first point I quoted, if the tonality of 120 film impresses you, wait till you see 4x5 or larger.

Larger formats use longer lenses to achieve the same field of view, and longer lenses have less depth of field, generally. You'll use a smaller aperture as a matter of routine. But one reason we spend so much time adjusting tilt is because the larger formats are more limiting in terms of depth of field. Shutter times in large format are routinely in the seconds range, rather than fractions of a second, because of the very tiny apertures used.

Many of the more modern 4x5 cameras have backs that can be removed and replaced at 90-degree intervals, even if they do not continuously rotate. Press cameras generally do not have that feature, but they were intended for hand-held use and could be turned on their side easily enough.

You may use a bit of back tilt from time to time on the rear standard, but you can achieve the same tilt of the focal plane with front forward tilt. Tilting the back changes the way the image is projected onto the film, and a back tilt makes objects in the bottom of the image bigger with respect to objects in the top of the image. This exaggerates vertical perspective, which may not be what you want. The only downside to tilting at the front is that it is more likely to find the edges of the lens coverage. You are right that many press cameras don't have a front downward tilt, but you can sometimes achieve it by dropping the bed without tilting the lens back, and then raising the lens using its shift feature.

As far as field cameras go, that's a topic that gets some argument. I prefer a monorail because the movements are intuitive and immediate. Field cameras require more of the fiddling like what I describe above, but of course with far more flexibility than press cameras. Some field cameras are very light, as are a few monorail cameras. Monorail cameras tend to be all metal and utilitarian, while field cameras often have wood bodies and polished brass bits that make them rather blingy. It ends up being a matter of preference. But an excellent monorail camera is generally cheaper than field cameras that are not made with the same all-metal durability and precision. The field cameras that have that are much more expensive.

Now to the subject I did not quote: 6x9. I also own a Nikon 8000 and I also do roll film. But I don't use 6x9 view camera. They tend to fall into two camps: Just like 4x5 cameras except harder to find and more expensive, or one of the new digital-intended cameras with extremely precise movements, which tend to be very expensive.

You do need precision in movements with medium format. A comparison will explain why. Let's say you place the camera three feet above the grassy ground that is covered with leaves you want to photograph. You want a wide-angle view, so you put a 47mm lens on the camera. To tilt the lens to bring the ground into the focus plane, you have to tilt it so the lens board intersects the line where the film plane intersections the ground. With a 2" lens, the tilt angle will be 3.2 degrees.

With a 4x5 camera, you'll get the same field of view with a 75mm lens. That 3" lens is tilted more to intersect the point where the film plane and ground meet, and the angle is 4.8 degrees.

Tilting the lens board 3.2 degrees requires a finer touch than tilting it nearly 5 degrees. That's why all current medium-format view cameras have very fine geared movements. And if they are intended for use with a digital back, which they are, they might be using a 1-inch lens, which requires a tilt of 1.6 degrees.

An 8x10 camera lens tilt in that situation would be about 10 degrees--a fairly large move compared to the small end of the format scale.

Thus, cameras designed for medium format tend to have a lot of fine movement control built into them, and that makes them heavy and expensive. Also, they are pointed at current commercial photographers, who require repeatability so that they can return to a setup easily, and that requires calibrated movements. That also adds to the price. There are excellent 4x5 cameras that are about the same size and lighter, that have non-geared movements you adjust with your fingers, but that still provide excellent precision. And if you choose carefully, you can get one that will easily accommodate very short lenses needed for smaller formats. You just might have to have a finer touch with your fingers.

For example a Sinar F2 with a Wide Angle Bellows 2 will easily accommodate lenses down to 47mm on a flat lens board, and will still provide a useful tilt range of 6 or 8 degrees, which is usually enough for a lens that short. Even with a roll-film holder, it will cost you less than a grand with a lens or two. Very few field cameras in that price range can accommodate such short lenses.

And while a well-made 4x5 camera can accommodate a roll-film holder, a medium-format view camera cannot ever accommodate 4x5 film. And you'll never see that additional tonality.

Rick "who has a similar story, except with more LF experience early in life" Denney

[lbenac]

Thanks to all of you for your detailed answers. It looks like if I am going to go through learning a new system I should go with 4x5 as a good middle ground. All arguments make sense, all the more as they come from direct experience.
I definitely need to read the book on view camera as soon as I receive it, to understand more of the finer points.
As far as wood is concerned, yes I appreciate beautiful craftsmanship, but it is not mandatory. Let say that wood in a Chamonix at $800 would be OK but not at Ebony's price regretfully.
The concept of a monorail cheaper, as light and easy to use as a field camera is interesting even if at this point I cannot really judge the differences without having at least see both in action.
Ease of setup and good ergonomics plus portability are definitely something I value.
As far as FOV for very wide angle, I am usually very comfortable with the equivalent of a 28mm in 135. The wider lenses I have, have never really see much use. My sweet spot is between 28mm and 45mm in 135 equivalent with sometime a jump to 100mm for certain close-up.

Finally thanks for the email, it has been answered positively :)

PS: Anybody interested in trading premium 35mm equipment against LF ;)

Cheers,

Luc

[Sirius Glass]

Luc,

You poor soul, your are following in my footsteps! 35mm added MF later 4"x5". GAS [Gear Acquisition Syndrome] and requirements creep rules!

When I went to 4"x5" I wanted to do landscapes and have hand held capability. Therefore I bought a 1928 4"x5" Graflex Model D [with a Graflok back] with 7" f/4.5 lens and 4"x5" Pacemaker Speed Graphic with a f/4.7 135mm lens. I am processing the film in a Jobo CPP 2 and a 3010 Expert Tank. I am still in the learning mode.

Consider a press camera which can be hand held or tripod mounted. They are inexpensive and easy to resell if you later choose a field camera.

YMMV

Keep your 35mm equipment, it serves a different set of camera usage.

Steve

[lbenac]

My soul is doing great :) my wallet is not :D

I had the pleasure to meet with a local forum member this afternoon to see his Technica and his 8x10. It helps put things in perspective.
At this point my brain is going two different ways:
1) a technical camera like a technica IV with limited back tilt but somewhat self-contained in the sens that it can be folded with a lens and make a compact package
2) a field camera like a Chamonix - more expansive but new so guaranteed not to need any repairs and with a large range of motion. Probably more camera than photographer but also should be future proof.

Cheers,

Luc

[stevebrot]

Luc,
Welcome to the forum. Too bad I live in the other Vancouver, otherwise I could give you a chance to compare the Chamonix to your recent exposure to the Technika IV. I handled a Technika a few weeks ago and they are pretty nice...;)


Steve

[lbenac]

Luc,
Welcome to the forum. Too bad I live in the other Vancouver, otherwise I could give you a chance to compare the Chamonix to your recent exposure to the Technika IV. I handled a Technika a few weeks ago and they are pretty nice...;)
Steve

I would be happy to adopt your Chamonix for a few weeks and give it a sense of the Canadian friendliness- hey.

[stevebrot]

I would be happy to adopt your Chamonix for a few weeks and give it a sense of the Canadian friendliness- hey.

You mean something of a foreign exchange with the 500 CM headed south?? :D


Steve

[Wade D]

Whatever type of camera you decide on you will be amazed at the difference between MF & 4x5. It's like the difference between 35mm & MF only on steroids! I kept my 35mm & MF for different shooting situations but for landscapes the 4x5 (or larger) is king.:cool:

[lbenac]

You mean something of a foreign exchange with the 500 CM headed south?? :D
Steve

It's a deal, meet you part way and we can exchange hostages :)


Luc

[lbenac]

Whatever type of camera you decide on you will be amazed at the difference between MF & 4x5. It's like the difference between 35mm & MF only on steroids! I kept my 35mm & MF for different shooting situations but for landscapes the 4x5 (or larger) is king.:cool:

That is my hope, Hell life is too short I caved in and put my name on the waiting list for a Chamonix 45-N2 now looking for a lens, board and film holders ;)

cheers,

Luc

[stevebrot]

It's a deal, meet you part way and we can exchange hostages :)


Luc


That is my hope, Hell life is too short I caved in and put my name on the waiting list for a Chamonix 45-N2 now looking for a lens, board and film holders ;)

cheers,

Luc

So much for the hostage exchange! Welcome to the club!


Steve

(Still though, it might be fun to do a meet-up some time. My folks live near Mt. Vernon and I am up there every once in a while for visits. We might even be able to grab Tuco from down Everett way.)

[lbenac]

So much for the hostage exchange! Welcome to the club!


Thanks, I was afraid that after having your camera with me for some time I would want to give it back :p




(Still though, it might be fun to do a meet-up some time. My folks live near Mt. Vernon and I am up there every once in a while for visits. We might even be able to grab Tuco from down Everett way.)

That would be great. And we can drop by at LensWork, they are located in Annacortes.
If during the summer I am booked last week of June and last week of July taking the family to Tofino and likely to Revelstoke and Lake Louise.

Cheers,

Luc

[Robert Crigan]

Hi Luc
First my credentials. I've worked as an arch.photog. for some years, using 45 and 810. I do a lot of landscape for myself, witrh 45 & 810. And I do portraits with both.
Second my recommendations: forget press, at the risk of offending press cameras many fans. Press cameras were made when miniature film couldn't deliver that was needed.
In comparison with 45 cameras from the 1960's on, they lacked the precision. They were made tough to bring home printable results to keep the editor happy.
I've tried MF and 45 press cameras as I so wanted to believe in them, but I grew tired of trying.
For my arch. work I used a Sinar 45F, which in the right cases was quite portable. Urban environment only of course, but that was fine.
For landscapes and backpacking I used 45 and 810 folding wooden cameras, Nagoako. They're fine. I've recently bought a Shen Hao HZX45 and you can readily see the progress made.
To sum up, Luc: don't handicap yourself with nostalgia. Progress is real, take advantage of it. Don't waste time trying lots of models or hiring different cameras. It takes a long time to learn the strengths and weaknesses of a camera. Give it a chance.
Good luck
Robert

I shoot mostly landscape and cityscape www.LucBenacPhoto.com (http://www.LucBenacPhoto.com)
This turns me naturally toward either a Press or a Field Camera.

But one of the capability that I am after, is a large DOF for front object to background which I think requires a tilt back. This would exclude a Press camera.

I also shot a lot in portrait mode (more than 50% of my shots) which I think would require a rotating back.
So with all this a Field camera would be the best choice?

Because I already have a good quality scanner limited to 6x9 negative size, and I would like to be able to carry the system around, I am looking at a 6x9 field camera as a logical choice. That said my first reading bring the following arguments against 6x9:
1) Difficult to judge the effect of tilt/shift on a 6x9 GG
2) Lenses on a small negative are not up to the quality of a MF lens (I am not sure of this and I have no prior experience to judge by myself)

In addition, I do not want to invest much money in a (possibly) first LF system. That say I like a well made camera that last and I like a simple well conceived camera that is easy to use which usually translate into $$$$$.

There are abundances of choices out there ranging from old to new and from a few hundred to a few thousands. I am also leery of an impulse buy on a "good deal" - throw me the first stone :)
I am sure that like in MF everybody has his/her own favourite and as many different answers. I am somewhat hopeful to put to rest the 6x9 versus 4x5 debate in my head with some help and possibly get some pointers on a selection of camera and lenses that are a good value with a reasonable ease of use. The worst camera is the one that stays at home.

BTW I have a Berlebach 2032 tripod which would take a reasonable weight.

Thanks in advance for everybody that feels like dropping a line.

Cheers,

Luc[/QUOTE]

[lbenac]

Hello Robert,

Thanks for the suggestions.
After seeing some equipment "in person" and exchanging PM with other forum members, I pretty much came to the same conclusion.
I decided to go for a Chamonix 45-n2 instead of looking for an "oldie". I did that for 35mm first and the for MF and ended-up with too many cameras and regretfully liking all of them. So I did not want to start this over again in LF.
The camera is new should be problem free and has more abilities than I - so should be future proof. I pretty much already ordered the full set-up so that I can concentrate on the learning part instead of the equipment part (which is also a lot of fun but need to stay under control).

So it reads like this:

Chamonix 45-N2
Caltar II-N 115/6.8
Caltar II-N 210/5.6
10 Riteway holders (old ones with metal handle)
Black Hood
100 sheets of FP4+


All of this coming in 4 or 5 weeks, just to give me the time to read "Using a View Camera" before making a nuisance of myself asking questions on the forum.

Now I am excited, broke and need to sell more 35mm and MF equipment :D


Cheers,

Luc

[jp]

Welcome, aside from the lens boards, you can use a variety of lenses on a variety of cameras, unlike 35/120 where you mostly have to stick to a system brand. You can pick up an old tessar sometime and stick it on your new field camera. You can pick up a different camera and keep your lenses, or pick up an old camera on craiglust just for lens!