Go to 4x5 or Stay with 6x6 - I need some clarification

[Hugh Sakols]

Dear Folks,

I'm having a dilema of whether I should give 4x5 a shot or stay with 35mm and 6x6. Let me first give you some background info so that you might be able to enlighten me.

I live on the edge of Yosemite where I am an elementary school teacher (not a professional landscape photographer). My form of escape is to take off Friday afternoon alone and photograph nature and landscape compositions in and around the park. I usually work in a slow deliberate manner. Some days I return having not taken a single exposure. I shoot Fine grained Fuji Velvia or Provia F (I may start using Astia). Now for my questions:

1)If I don't make prints larger than 11x14 is there any reason to shoot 4x5?

2) Would having movements alone be reason enough to go to 4x5 considering that I may not get any better resolution.

3)Can I get super sharp prints scanning 4x5 on a Epson 3200 or am I better off saving for a dedicated scanner for my 120 film.

I know there are a number of fabulous landscape photographers who don't print more that 16x20 and use fine grained transparency film. Why do they use 4x5 - why not just 645?? Is it solely the process that attracts you to the view camera or focusing ground glass? Any input would help me. I want to make the most professional, artistic looking prints I can at home without having to pay $$$ on drum scans.

[Bill_1856]

Unless you have a problem with your present system, stick with it. Only change to something else when there is a real need not a theoretical reason. And do you need a part-time teacher's aid (I'll work cheap!)?

[Bruce Watson]

1) Yes. Movements. Groundglass. Larger negative, which among other things give better tonality, I think. Slow, deliberate methodology forces you to really understand what you are doing. You can't wander back and forth with the camera attached to your face looking for the right place to take a picture. You have to walk the scene without the camera - you have to understand what you are trying to capture before you set up. This alone will improve your art.

2) Absolutely. You'll finally have trees that stand up straight, and buildings that don't keystone. Or, distortion when you want it, how you want it.

3) I did it with an Epson 2450, I don't know why a 3200 can't. Up to a 4x enlargement you may have difficulty seeing the difference between scans from the Epson flatbeds and a drum scanner. After that... well, if you have an image you really like, you'll want to get it drum scanned.

People who don't print bigger than 16x20 but use a 4x5 or 8x10 camera almost always do it for control, IMHO. A close second is for the deliberate way you have to work. A close third is for the image on the groundglass. A close forth is the size of the negative. Less magnification is a good thing, IMHO. And with 4x5 and larger, you don't even have to consider grain - it just becomes a non-issue. You pick the films you use for how they handle light and how they render color and tonality rather than grain size.

Of course, these reasons could just be why I do it!

BTW, do you guys need more teachers? I could use a job near Yosemite ;-)

[Mark Erickson]

Just one more vote in favor of large format: there's nothing like a big chrome on a light table.

[Bruce Watson]

I usually work in a slow deliberate manner. Some days I return having not taken a single exposure.

One other thing. You already have the temperment for using a view camera. More than a few times I've carried my camera on my back the entire day without taking a single picture - I know exactly where you are coming from.

[Alan Davenport]

I've been shooting 4x5 for a little more than a year, so I'm still a tadpole in this pond. I decided to start shooting LF to get the increased film area, as I was seldom pleased with anything larger than 11x14 from 35mm. Along with the bigger film comes the most control you'll ever have of focus and composition. Your question about scanners, I can speak to, since the Epson 2450 was the final piece of the puzzle for me (I spent my youth in wet darkrooms, tired of that mess, and needed an affordable scanner to make the leap to LF.) The 2450 is rated at 2400 dpi, though many photographers say it is really only good for about 1600 dpi true resolution. Dunno about that, but I know that setting the scanner for 2400 dpi gives me a large enough file to print larger than 24x30 at 300 dpi, and needs to be reduced in size to make smaller prints. Yes, you can get amazingly sharp prints from the Epson scanners; the biggest advantage drum scanners have is better dynamic range. It's possible to "expand" the dynamic range of the flatbeds by scanning an image more than once (at different settings) and sandwiching the scans. More work, yes, but affordable. Yeah, I'm attracted to the LF process; there's something amazing about working with the inverted image on the groundglass. If you're already a slow, deliberate photographer, you'll probably like it too. Sorry for the ramble...

Dunno if this will add inspiration, but here's one I shot last week:

http://w7apd.home.comcast.net/photo/tunnelbeachrocks-600.jpg

[Nick_3536]

If you're stuck with 11x14 prints then there is no reason to use a camera bigger then 11x14-) Personally there is an obvious difference to a smaller enlargement. An 11x14 from a 4x5 negative is similar to a 3x5 from a 35mm negative.

4x5 cameras can also be relatively cheap. An older less then shiny 4x5 camera with a nice lens will produce high quality negatives.

[Graeme Hird]

Hugh,

Hogarth summed it up pretty well. You will notice an improvement going from 6x6 to 5x4.

I use the Epson 2450 for scans and I'm very happy with enlargements beyond 16x20" done on Lightjet printers.

Your methods are already leaning towards the LF style of working. Hire a camera for a week and try it. I think you'll take it up.

Cheers, Graeme

[tim o'brien]

Since I assume you don't process your own, I would advise you to stay with MF. The cost difference for developing and printing will be quite a shock especially seeing that you live in the wilderness. If, on the other hand you said you were going to start developing B&W, because of where you live, I would recommend 8x10. Huge difference in beginning expenses (8x10 camera, film holders, and one good lens), but the speed that you shoot at would keep ongoing expenses down. The first time you saw an Azo print made from your negative, you would understand. Unreal detail.

Shooting color in Yosemite? The whole place is gray anyhowz.

tim, only slighty pulling your leg, in san jose

[Steve J Murray]

I agree with Hogargh and Graeme. I use 4x5 with the Epson 2450 and I find that's a great combination for both black and white negs or color negs/trans. Along with the camera's movements, you'll get smooth sharp prints and almost any size you want. I agree with Graeme that you should rent a camera outfit and try it for a weekend or two and see how you like it. There is a learning curve so don't expect to master view camera movements overnight, but its not that hard. I learned just by doing it.

Steve

[Jim Galli]

I also progressed from 35 to MF then on to LF. But......if I get an assignment for punchy color pics (just finished a large Nevada Commission on Tourism grant for 14 20X30's) I use the Mamiya. Had someone ask if those 20X30's were from 8X10 originals! So even though I have the bigger cameras and am enjoying them for B&W work, a good MF system and Velvia is all anyone needs for color work as far as I'm concerned. 4X5 Velvia etc. is expensive compared to 120 roll. And then you start the dust hassles! And then you go to "readyloads." And then it's REALLY expensive. I remember a View Camera piece about 6 years ago now where a guy was knocking himself out carrying an 8X10 all over the desert SW and making these killer Velvia chromes. Even then and increasingly since, no one appreciates all that hard work. They just figure you pumped it all up in photo shop with the "hue-saturation" slider.

[Brian Ellis]

I use 6x7 and 4x5 in black and white only. I don't know how well my experience with black and white will help with your color but FWIW I see no difference in "sharpness" or tonal gradations between 6x7 and and 4x5 with my prints up to 11x14. If you crop your 6x6 to a 645 aspect ratio you might see a difference but I'd guess not though I don't know for sure since I've never used 6x6 or 645. I've shown prints made from both 6x7 and 4x5 at John Sexton's workshops and he couldn't tell which was which (I don't mean to suggest that was because I'm such a great photographer or printer, just that someone with an outstanding eye and a lot of experience couldn't see a difference with 11x14 prints).

Whether movements alone are enough reason to change is up to you. You presumably aren't doing any architecture and with landscape in Yosemite (BTW, it's really tough luck having to live right next to Yosemite, we all sympathize with you : - ))I imagine your main interest in movements would be using rise and/or tilt to keep the trees from looking like they're falling over backwards and perhaps using tilt to change the plane of focus so that things very close and very far both appear to be in focus. As I'm sure you know, several medium format camera manufacturers make shift lenses that help with the falling backwards trees. I use one with my Pentax 67 system. But shift lenses don't let you change the plane of focus.

Since you work slowly already you might enjoy the contemplative aspects of large format work, plus it's really nice looking at the image on a ground glass.

[John O'Connell]

You're invested in 6x6. Stick with it until you need movements. And if you don't know that you need movements, you probably don't need them.

I don't think there's a huge quality jump between 6x6 and 4x5. At 11x14 I don't think you'll see much difference, especially if you scan, which I think obliterates some of 4x5's advantage at such small print sizes.

It's also easier to get consistent originals in roll film formats. Dust is much less of a problem because it's only a concern after processing. Movements don't cause unintentional unsharpness. Film holders have a certain old-fashioned charm but when one goes it's really not pleasant; tossing one can be expensive (film + time lost + replacement cost).

I like LF a lot, personally, but I bought into it because it was cheaper than MF. You already have MF and don't have a need yet to go bigger. So... don't.

[Sergio Caetano]

To this classic question I would like to point something about "needs". Somebody needs or not better tonal range, sharpness, graininess, resolution, movements, composition (ground glass)etc ? Except that somebody is only interested on photographing party of his/her kids or the weekend barbecue, I think he/she needs to improve his/her photo work. I can't imagine somebody like Hugh, with the privilege of being every week on friday afternoon in Yosemite not needing: raising/falling the lens to adjust the horizon line, tilting for focus and utiling best f/stop, getting big negative for high quality print etc. Hugh, you DO need LF. (I wish I could be there...)

[dan nguyen]

I use both format depending on situation, time, weather.... I suppose that you don't need to sell the MF to get a 4x5. So, why don't give the 4x5 a try and use both of them. Get a basic 4x5 gear (around $1000 or less) and if you like it then improve it or move to something according to your taste and to what you have learned...I think you will like the LF.... good luck

[dan nguyen]

Also.... if you go for LF, be prepared to answer questions from other people when your head is under the dark cloth.... :-)

[QT Luong]

People are attracted to LF for two reasons: (a) the results (b) the methods. If (and that's a serious if) your goals do not change, you don't need LF to achieve them. Whether you'd like working with LF rather than MF is difficult to predict.

[James Phillips]

I've been shooting 4x5 for a little more than 3 years, so I'm still a tadpole with tiny legs starting to show, in this pond. :>))

When I entered into the area of landscape photography with my first 4x5 it was because I needed to slow down and learn more. The process of carrying a hand camera and moving easily here and there for a shot was probably quite detrimental for my learning process. I am still struggling to learn when it is appropriate and when not to use camera movements. (the temptation to explore movements is sometimes over powering).

The truth is that sometimes I miss having my MF camera because I do incorrectly asses a scene and waste away the good light taking down and setting up again somewhere. There have been enough times where I have been frustrated trying to get set-up quickly while the "sun in the clouds" movement is just right only to be frustrated by the slowness of the LF procedure and losing the wonderful opportunity provided by a special moment of sun, cloud and shadow. The reason I do not have my MF gear during these times is the “carry weight” consideration when in the mountains. If you are shooting from beside your vehicle then this would not be a problem.

The point made about less dust problems with roll film and how much easier it is to carry a few rolls in comparison to many sheets is quite valid. Conversely having the ability to decide at the moment whether to slide in the “chrome” or a B&W negative (assuming you have loaded film carriers with different films) is a real treat out in the field. The other part which I truly love is the ability to process each and every negative independently though I do not need to do this for each negative but rather as the situation and my photographic visualizations dictate.

On the flip side, like many others I find the size of the negative, the actual total control of movements (when I get them correct), and the lack of concern about grain to be very alluring. Also for myself I feel that I need to go through this slow set-up, compose, adjust and shoot process in order to become a better photographer. So like QT Luong has indicated, whether you'd LIKE working with LF rather than MF is difficult to predict

Kind Regards,

[Peter Galea]

If you see the world with two eyes, you will love using the groundglass.

[Marc Alberts]

Great question, Hugh. After all, if the new equipment is not going to do anything for you, why shoot with it? Hopefully, these responses and mine help.

<<1)If I don't make prints larger than 11x14 is there any reason to shoot 4x5?>>

Yes and no. From a grain perspective, you're probably not going to see a ton of difference with 6x6, but there might be some. However, as Hogarth pointed out, being able to correct perspective can really improve your photos, especially in a place like Yosemite where you're looking across the valley at very tall things. Shooting up at that angle will make the lines on an El Capitan converge just a little bit, so it will lose some of it's majesty, which you can get back with a view camera.

One thing that you'll probably find, as I know I experienced it and many others have as well, is that once you see those big, gorgeous chromes on your light table, you'll never want to shoot anything else. It's kind of a zen moment.

<<2) Would having movements alone be reason enough to go to 4x5 considering that I may not get any better resolution.>>

It really depends on your shooting style. You've mentioned that you are deliberate, which is a necessity to shooting 4x5, so that will help. You'll be able to do much better composition on the larger ground glass, and with the movements, you'll learn how to do really amazing wide angle shots using the movements for perspective control. It's something else.

<<3)Can I get super sharp prints scanning 4x5 on a Epson 3200 or am I better off saving for a dedicated scanner for my 120 film.>>

Unless you're going to be saving for an Imacon, you're definitely better off scanning 4x5 on your Epson. The consumer-grade scanners tend to really block up quite a bit Velvia, even with medium format film. So all the effort to carefully expose the image leaves you without significant shadow detail, compressing what might have been a 4.5 stop exposure into a 3.5 stop scan. With the bigger chromes, you should be able to do a little better, since you'll have more gradual gradiations.

<<I know there are a number of fabulous landscape photographers who don't print more that 16x20 and use fine grained transparency film. Why do they use 4x5 - why not just 645??>>

One of the big differences that really hasn't been brought up above except for James' response that I want to reiterate is that you can direct development to each individual frame. If you need to push a shot, you no longer have to shoot the entire roll pushed. Also, if you see a shot that's screaming for B/W, you can easily do it, without having to waste the roll. It can really improve your shooting, since the look of a pushed Velvia slide (not to mention a pulled Velvia slide--don't do that unless you want to see golf balls!) is significantly different from a straight development. If you're working in high contrast light, you'll learn to appreciate this.

As far as cost, it's true that each individual image is more expensive. However, you'll probably find that you shoot fewer exposures with 4x5, even if you are deliberate in your style. For me, on my average hiking trip, I'll shoot 5-6x the exposures I will do with large format, but I'm generally more satisfied with my large format slides.

<<Is it solely the process that attracts you to the view camera or focusing ground glass? Any input would help me.>>

It's a big part of it, but I would say that it's more an artistic freedom issue for me. There are some shots that you can't get with a large format camera, but if you're shooting landscape, you should be able to get almost any shot you can pre-visualize to show up on the emulsion. I've found that there have been shots I simply couldn't make look right with medium format, and even fewer that come out right when I shot 35mm. Part of it is the ground glass, since being able to properly place a graduated neutral density filter on a 4x5 is a thousand times easier than with medium format. But being able to control each and every aspect made me look at composition and how I shoot in an entirely different light, and it's much more satisfying to me. It might be for you as well.

<<I want to make the most professional, artistic looking prints I can at home without having to pay $$$ on drum scans.>>

4x5 will definitely help, I think. I've had a tough time getting the results I want out of Nikon Coolscans and the like, as discussed above.

One suggestion: if you have a camera store you can easily access, I'd recommend renting one and grabbing a book like Steve Simmons' "Using the View Camera" or Leslie Stroebel's "View Camera Basics" and give it a try. Better to see if you're going to be satisfied with the process before dumping the dollars, and either of those books will walk you through the process pretty quickly so you will be able to hike out and give it a try.

I have never shot in Yosemite, but I would also make sure that whichever camera you get, make sure it is going to lock down very firmly if it gets windy there. The first 4x5 I ever got was a Tachihara, which probably would have been fine in normal circumstances, but wouldn't lock down tight enough to be used for beach shots. I ended up trading it in on a used Linhof field camera, which is all metal, and thus much stiffer, and my photos have improved greatly.

To give you an idea of prices, the Linhof was $700 used, and the lens was about $300 used (my first lens was my Nikkor 180W, which is a very inexpensive normal lens for a 4x5 with good coverage, and a great price). I haven't used one, but the Shen-Hao cameras seem to get good reviews, and they are about $700 new when shipped, so that might be a good option for you as well. Add in a really good spirit level, a cable release, a dark cloth, a half dozen film holders and a box of film, and you'll probably be looking at about $1500 or less for the full kit if you're a good bargain shopper. Something to take into account. You can definitely do it for a little less, but I think that's a pretty fair range for a starter view camera kit.

Anyway, I hope that helps.

[Corwyn]

On the non-technical side, I find LF fun. You might too. See if you can find a place to rent one for a weekend, and try it. If nothing else you will have some 4 by 5 _Slides_ of Yosemite to make us all jealous (ok, _more_ jealous).

Enjoy.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Some other arguments, purely technical, plus one, not technical at all, in addition to all what has been said. There are many non-technical arguments which are for me as important, but I do not want to elaborate on the real joy to use a LF camera. I like 6X6 cameras as well (TLRs and SLRs).

#1 If you build your home digital "darkroom" for colour, as of 2003 the best ratio between quality and price is obtained with a 4"x5" image scanned on a flatbed scanner. I totally support Hogarth Hughes's opinion.

I had the opportunity to attend an unformal and friendly session of French LF aficionados, where a friend (a professional) brought in a side-by-side comparison of a colour inkjet print obtained with a 6x6 combination (Hasselblad / Planar2,8-80 / 120 'chrom / Imacon scanner / inkjet) as compared to (Linhof Technika / Apo-Symmar-4"x5" 'chrome / flatbed scanner / inkjet).

The 4"x5" solution wins easily but yes, both prints were bigger than 11"x14". I do not want to underestimate the role played by the Linhof camera, but I've seen similar prints taken with a 4"x5" wooden field camera fitted with a modern lens, they are very similar.

#2 Another argument can be interesting if by "6x6" you mean 6x6 SLR. What follows does not apply to MF rangefinder cameras for which wide angle lens design is somewhat similar to LF lens design (except for image circle, no movements being required).

6X6 SLR cameras are handicapped by the flipping mirror. 645 cameras slightly less. The best example of this handicap is the evolution of the 40mm Zeiss distagon for 6X6 SLRs. It took about 40 years and 3 generations to Zeiss engineers to design a 40mm retrofocus for 6x6 that could rival the non-retrofocus biogon. Here we are now, with the very last 40-CFI-IF with floating elements... but check for the retail price.

There comes an important advantage of 4"x5", the fact that for wide angle shots, you can use the best non-retrofocus lenses available, they cover much more than a MF lens, they cost less and their performance is superb. Check for the price of a 55m apo-grandagon view camera lens covering 110 degrees and compare with any 6X6 SLR wide angle lens even up to 90 degrees (40mm 6x6). The non retrofocus lens is lighter cheaper and will allow you much more room for movements.

However if you are interested in long focal length with little use of movements, 6X6 or 35mm are much more comfortable.

So as a summary, two arguments among many other excellent arguments in favor of LF photography : home digital darkroom is top-class with 4"x5" and a flatbed scanner, and for wide angle shots view camera lenses are unrivalled both in performance and price.

A last argument may be valid for France where very few amateurs are using view cameras, the fact that unformal meetings between amateurs and professionals take place with extremely fruitful exchanges. The situation is very strange. Most French professionals cannot continue to use view cameras because they have to go digital to make a living. French professionals that I have met are delighted to see that amateurs will continue the art of large format photography, and exchanges are very friendly, very different from before when pros would hardly ever speak to amateurs, would consider the view camera as their exclusive tool, or would consider amateurs as unfair competitors.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think I am going to be one of the dissenting voices on this one. If color is your preference then (and some of you are going to keel over seeing me write this) perhaps staying with MF would be best for you, and use digital for your prints. If my limited understanding of digital is correct then I beleive that the "enlargement" depends on scan resolution. A MF transparency has more than enough information to allow for high resolution scans which will allow you to make 11x14 prints or perhaps even a bit larger.

The equipment is a lot lighter than LF which allows you to explore more (unless of course you are doing like St. Ansel and have a burro to help you). From what I understand scanners for 35 mm and MF are much more common, cheaper and better than those for LF.

IMO movements for landscape are not that important, sure there might be a few instances where you might wish you had them, but I think a higher percentage of shots does not need them or needs very limited movements, for which with careful planning and composition you might not require them at all. Since you are working already like this, why change something that is working for you?

Then we come to the equipment part, in B&W we can get away with using cheap lenses if we take care to control flare, but with color IMO more modern lenses with coatings etc are a greater necessity to render color and tonality better. If you get something cheap like a Crown Graphic or a Speed graphic with an old lens, you are not much better off than with your MF system, sure you get the bigger negative, but movements are limited and the lens will not even compare to your modern MF lenses.

I think Graeme said it best, rent a camera, see how you like it, see if you really need the movements. Compare expense vs quality and see if you are really that much better off with a bigger tranny. I love LF, but my hassy sees a lot of use also.

[Christopher Condit]

1. Don't forget that LF lenses have considerably less DOF than MF lenses. Sure, you can tilt in LF to get the foreground and background both in focus, but with MF you might not need to bother.

2. You don't mention if you use auto-focus, auto-exposure, zooms, or really long lenses; none of these features are available with LF.

3. It is the case that you *will* miss some shots due to the slowness of the LF process. The dang sun set on me just last week.

4. I feel like there is an LF community; I've never noticed that with MF. I met a big deal professional photographer in Yosemite and had a wonderful chat for about an hour with him. I was shooting my $300 used Gowland, and he came over to ask *me* about *my* camera.

5. No law says you can't do both (except maybe the law of economics ;-)). Though I wouldn't recommned doing both in the same outing.

6. Personally, I prefer LF because it is more fun, makes me feel connected to photography of the past, and is the furthest away from my day job in computers. I am much more interested in the process than in the relative results.

CXC

[Hugh Sakols]

Thank you for your insight and detailed responses. I appreciate all the time you gave to answer my questions. What I am especially intrigued by is the idea of making scans on a flatbed such as the Epson 3200, being able to switch from velvia to astia without wasting a role, possibly making panoramics, and of course perfecting my images through the use of movements ( at least for some images - most are just fine). If I do go with 4x5, I certainly won't abandon my other formats completely. I would like to find a used metal press or field camera. Right now I'm looking at a Speed Graphic (good value - not much movements), possibly a Linhof III (better built, maybe more movements, but expensive lens boards????), or a Linhof IV - now that is a beautiful piece of equipment (heavy, well made, expensive lens boards). If I can find a good deal on a Linhof, can I find affordable lenses (Around $300.00)?? Maybe this would be easier if I were a profesional with concise goals and requirements. Instead I'm like one of my students who has just discovered the joy of the river and can't get enough.

[Gary DeWitt]

From a newcomer to LF:

I like the process of large format photography. I almost never make a print so, though the idea of the possibility of large prints appeals to me, negative size isn't really part of it for me.

I can get images on LF that I can't without movements. But the reverse is true, too, in that some things are easier with smaller formats, especially macro work. However, since I do mostly landscape I find I'm pretty happy with the capabilities of LF. For example, I have lots of shots of El Cap, Half Dome, Sentinel Rock, etc., with converging trees and have long wanted to shoot in Yosemite with a view camera. I'm finally going to get my chance as I'm spending the first week in November in the Valley.

I use an Epson 3200 scanner. I have yet to get a scan I liked out of it. But I'm getting close. I scan twice at different gammas and combine the results. Still not perfect, but OK for now. For serious work I send chromes down to your neck of the woods for West Coast Imaging to drum scan.

Gary DeWitt

[Marc Alberts]

Hugh wrote: <<What I am especially intrigued by is...possibly making panoramics>>

Panoramics really work great--you can either simply crop your 4x5, or (for may 4x5 systems) get yourself a roll film back which will shoot 6x9 on 120, in case you don't want to crop. Good times!

<<and of course perfecting my images through the use of movements ( at least for some images - most are just fine).>>

I can only speak for myself, but once I discovered what movements could do for me, I was never satisfied with not doing a little tweaking in almost every photo. Funny how that works.

<<I would like to find a used metal press or field camera. Right now I'm looking at a Speed Graphic (good value - not much movements), possibly a Linhof III (better built, maybe more movements, but expensive lens boards????), or a Linhof IV - now that is a beautiful piece of equipment (heavy, well made, expensive lens boards).>>

If you can do it, definitely get the IV over the III. The III has a few things missing you probably would like, including front swings, and isn't as stiff a body (or as smooth, IMO, since the IV and later feel like all the movements are done by magic movement elves--it's a real mechanical pleasure). Furthermore (and this will answer your other question, I think), the III uses a different lens board which is not compatible with the IV, and therefore not compatible with Tachihara, Wista, and about 3/4 of all the lensboards you can buy now for non-Graflex 4x5s. The linhof branded boards may indeed be expensive, but Wista boards are considerably less and will work on the IV (not the III), and Bromwell boards at B&H will set you back a whopping $34, so it won't really break the bank. It's not like you're buying a Canon EOS or Nikon system where you're going to want 75 lenses, anyway.

Anyway--I hope that helps. Just remember--the first thing you're going to want to do when you check out your new-to-you field camera is look for light leaks in the bellows. With the older bellows, they can develop tiny leaks, and changing the bellows is difficult. However, if you get a good set of bellows, and you take care of them, they should last for years.

Good luck!

[James Driscoll]

If you can do it, definitely get the IV over the III. The III has a few things missing you probably would like, including front swings, and isn't as stiff a body (or as smooth, IMO, since the IV and later feel like all the movements are done by magic movement elves--it's a real mechanical pleasure). Furthermore (and this will answer your other question, I think), the III uses a different lens board which is not compatible with the IV, and therefore not compatible with Tachihara, Wista, and about 3/4 of all the lensboards you can buy now for non-Graflex 4x5s. The linhof branded boards may indeed be expensive, but Wista boards are considerably less and will work on the IV (not the III), and Bromwell boards at B&H will set you back a whopping $34, so it won't really break the bank.



The Linhof Tech III has front swings, what it doesn't have is forward tilt, you can "fake" this movement by swinging the camera on its side and using the swing as tilt.

The early Model III does have a "less" rigid body, what this means is it can only be dropped from a height of 8 feet not 9 and 1/2.

Later Tech III's, the ones with an angled front are a lot stronger. The last Tech III actually has the same body as the Tech IV, but with Tech III movements, and the Tech III method of removing the back.

Avoid non-Linhof boards anyway on a tech IV and up, the fit, but have problems-kinda like how horseman boards fit Sinar's, but the emphasis is on the word "kinda".

Tech III's use the same board as the
"Linhof Standard Press", and Tech III boards show up on EBAY quite often.

All in All, the IV and later cameras are "better", but why writeoff an equally usable camera.

If rangefinder focusing is your thing, look for a V or newer, where they standardized the cams and the whole thing (lens, and camera) does not have to sent to Linhof or Marflex (in the USA) to be matched.

Fred Picker's old assistant (or something or another) grinds cams for the model III, so all is not lost if that is what you want.

[ronald lamarsh]

If you ask them why they don't just use 645 take a good look at the finnished print, I would recommend wholeheartedly that you read an article in View Camera magazine(nov 2002) titled " does the view camera still matter" pg 36. The conclusion is yes! simply due to the impact the final print has. As stated earlier an 11x14 from a 4x5 is like a 3x5 from 35mm :large negatives impart an undefinable, unmeasurable impact to any enlargement, just look at a contact print from a 5x7 sometime. I have shot 6x6, 6x9, 35mm, and have now settled on 4x5 and 5x7. it all boils down to what you want.....I don't make a living from photography so its easy for me....the end product only has to please me and those I share it with. If you're making a living from it use the tools that best suit you,99% of the people out there couldn't tell the difference or care! national geo. still uses 35mm and I don't think I've ever heard anyone gripe about the quality of their photo's. The impact thing is hard to describe, but if you're ever in seattle go downtown there is an art gallery there with quite a few of Edward Curtis' original photogravures......they are stunning. The final note has to be a great photo is more about content and the feeling it generates with the viewer than any absolute scientific measurement you can make.

[Andreas Schmidt]

Most has already been said, therefore just some short comments:

- if you like panoramic formats, using a 6x12 rollfilm back on a 4x5" camera or even a 6x17 on a 8x10" (do they fit a 5x7"?) camera might be the way to go.

- shooting with really long lenses on 4x5" *is* possible, contrary to what somebody stated above. I personally use a 1200mm lens (on a standard Arca with the long bellows) and I've seen some 1800mm Apo Ronar (or was it Apo Germinar?) lenses. Your choice of camera is a little bit more restricted, though, and handling is certainly not as comfortable as with 35mm or MF.

- if you frequently take photos under changing and interesting light conditions, a MF camera has the big advantage of being faster (translate it as "fast enough").

- wasting rolls of film for push/pull development of individual photos is only marginally (if at all - depends on how many shots of the roll you actually used) more expensive than 4x5" sheet film. You should not base your choice of camera on this, if you don't do it excessively. And then, there are still the MF cameras with interchangable back...

[Christopher Condit]

I stand corrected regarding long lenses, it's not impossible to use them, just very difficult.

[Paul Levin]

Wow Hugh, nice location for your job there buddy. I'm new to LF as well. I had a medium format kit which I sold to move to 4X5. For me it seemed a natural compliment to the way I work anyway. Even with MF, and only 15 exposures on a roll I'd struggle to finish off a roll of film. Often I ended up developing the roll before it was complete just so it wouldn't sit for weeks in the camera. Yesterday I was out shooting on route 202 in Bill Clintons new neighborhood. Not wanting to deal with someone chasing me off their property I set up across the street to shoot a stone mansion. The first peek at the glass revealed that the road and passing cars were visible at the top of the glass. A little front rise and rear fall and presto! no more road. The building and trees remained straight. Magic. I only shot 2 exposures all day. But how often do you shoot roll film and only like 2 shots? LF makes you work at taking only those 2 shots. I enjoy it, others may not.