Are there any 4x5 cameras with big rangefinders like the polaroid 110B?

[EH21]

Hi All,
I'm relatively new to LF and have been shooting a 4x5 speed graphic with the top mounted rangefinder. Recently I tested a Polaroid 110B conversion to 4x5 and loved the rangefinder view which is wonderful compared to the tiny one in my speed graphic. I'm now looking for something that has some movements but with a better rangefinder and would welcome some suggestions.
Thanks,
Eric

[Ari]

Look at a Wista RF; I'm not sure if the rangefinder is necessarily better, but it's worth mentioning as an alternative.

[IanG]

The British MPP MicroPress has a bigger rangefinder than the Speed Graphics, in fact it had a top mounted rangefinder earlier than the Pacemakers. However it's not an advantage to you as it's essentially a Speed Graphic in a Celestion speaker case, same shutter, focus rails, front standard etc, so same movements. (Celestion speakers and MPP had the same owner).

Maybe a Linhof Technica or a Super Graphic would be better. I'm now using a Super Graphic in preference to my Speed & Crown Graphics and there's more than enough movemebts for me. I haven't restored the Rangefinder yet though.

Ian

[David A. Goldfarb]

The 110B has a fixed lens, so it's easier to make a single-window rangefinder/viewfinder for it. An interchangeable lens rangefinder is a more complicated business, particularly when the lenses could be made by anyone. 4x5" Linhofs in general have separate rangefinders and viewfinders, and each lens needs a custom ground cam to couple to the rangefinder.

[Bill_1856]

Are you referring to the rangefinder or the big, projected bright line viewfinder? They are two completely different different functions.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The Busch View-Focus finder on the Pressman D seems worth mentioning, as an all in one finder. Pretty much limited to a 135mm focal length for RF use, though, and they haven't been in production for nearly 50 years.

[Frank Petronio]

I've shot a lot of handheld RF 4x5. My current thinking is that a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder (120 film) outclasses all of them, at least in terms of getting successful results.

[sumo]

I think (but not certain) that the 110B and similar conversions are the only 4x5s with a combined view and rangefinder. It would be awesome if someone could come up with a frame selector mechanism like a Leica. Another alternative, although not really too practical, would be a Horseman VH-R. They're designed for 6x9 but you can get 4x5 backs and a few of the lenses can cover. Problems with the system as a 4x5 are that it will be bulky and awkward with the adapter back and the lens lineup is limited. It might also be hard to some across outside Japan? The Viewfinder is 1:1 so its big and bright but the rangefinder is separate. Its similar to the Wista mentioned above.

What kind of movements are you looking for? And what is wrong with the rangefinder in a 110B? I'm not sure you are going to find a much better rangefinder in 4x5.

[EH21]

Hi All,
Thanks for the replies. If the 110B is about as good a rangefinder as it gets, then I think I will look for a 110B with graflok style back then. I don't really use movements that much.

Frank - I have quite a few 6x6 and 6x7 cameras - really wanted to shoot 4x5 but its interesting to read you thought you got better results with the fuji.

Regards,
Eric

[Ari]

I've shot a lot of handheld RF 4x5. My current thinking is that a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder (120 film) outclasses all of them, at least in terms of getting successful results.

Agree 100%, at least with the idea that a good MF camera will yield better results handheld, as that's what it's made for.

[patrickjames]

I don't have much trouble hand holding the Polaroid conversion that I have plus it has a Schneider lens on it so the image quality is pretty good. I think if you can find one that is well made and has a real 4x5 Graflok or international back on it (not the odd ones that are available out there) you will be doing good. The one I have sports a Sinar back that has been machined for it. I think the only one commercially available with a standard back on it is the Littman but good luck with him. The focusing of the 110b is easier to use in my opinion. The mechanism that the 900 has is awkward to me. A lot of people talk about haw the rangefinder goes out of alignment a lot but I have never had a problem with it. All that being said, there isn't a ton of difference in image quality when you step down to a 6x9 Fuji or even a Mamiya 7. I still prefer the Polaroid though.

[Frank Petronio]

If you imagine a handheld 8x10 or larger, you'd expect to reach a point of diminishing returns on sharpness and practicality. I'm arguing that the threshold is right around a quality 6x9 or 6x7 camera (the acknowledged sharpest Fuji 690 series or Mamiya 7 especially) and not 4x5 - in the real world.

Sure if you can always shoot your 4x5 at the highest shutter speeds and f/16 then even a 60-year old Optar will smoke the smaller film, but in day-to-day use when you can't get the speed and aperture you wish, the medium format camera will maximize your results with the light you've got. Just like a 35mm camera with a f/1.4 lens will ultimately make a better shot than the medium format once the light levels get low enough.

Of course Weegee and the old time journalists used flash bulbs to get their light, and most of their great shots were at medium distances so the could get away with minor focusing errors. Once you start talking to people who do a lot of handheld you start to realize they are shooting in strong light and from further away, minimizing their focusing misses. Go look at the Aero-Ektar thread and see how many handheld and close shots actually are focused perfectly ;-p

The converted Polaroids do have a nice rangefinder but I remember mine going out of whack pretty often, like when I took one to Italy and had to loupe things because it kept changing.... And I agree, a true Graflock back is worth the extra bulk and expense because your holders load so much easier than with the alternative back designs.

Believe me, I have a $2000 Linhof here and I wish I could tell you that it was definitively the best for handheld shooting. But my prints and experience disprove that. Not that shooting 4x5 handheld isn't fun and if it suits your mood, go for it. But if it's the results that matter to you, do a test with a variety of lighting and shooting situations and see for yourself!

[Jody_S]

The only 'large format' rangefinder I know with minimal movements that can compete with the 110's finder is the Kalart Press camera. But it only came in one format, 3-1/4x4-1/4. It is a beautifully-made camera.

[patrickjames]

I pretty much agree with what Frank wrote. The Polaroid works for me because I built it and understand it. I guess that would be the caveat with my statement. Most everyone would be better off with a Mamiya 7 if it is to be used handheld.

[sumo]

Medium format RF cameras are nice and easy to use but I think it really depends on what you are trying to do with the camera in the first place. If you are trying to do anything that involves working relatively fast and needing various lenses etc, then a MF camera would be a better choice but if you are going for a slower approach and are working within the limitations of the LF cameras, then why not choose the larger negative? The 110B and similar conversions are actually quite quick to use and are not that much more cumbersome than a smaller camera. The RF on my 900 is stable and well calibrated and it allows a quick shot. Multiple shots are not really feasible since you have to change the film one way or another but to focus and take one photo is quick enough.

[Corran]

The answer to your original question is that the Polaroid 110B or 900 have excellent rangefinders and shoot wonderfully with a proper conversion. Mine is equipped with a 135mm f/3.5 Schneider Xenotar and it is a fantastic combo and I love to use it. If sheet film and individualized development is your thing, it is more or less unmatched. And as much as I'd love otherwise, even a Mamiya 80mm f/2 or Pentax 105mm f/2.4 lens on MF isn't going to have the short DOF and rendering that 4x5 has.

I won't argue that MF film can get the same results under skilled hands but at least in my experience, it won't. However, it is true that in the worst possible light, smaller formats will certainly have the advantage in fast lenses, but even so I've experimented with interesting film development processes that give extreme speed and significantly closes the gap.

Here's an image I posted for the April portrait thread. This photo was taken while my friend painted with a flash at f/3.5 and 1/200. The print is even better:
http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/0212ss.jpg

[anglophone1]

I have a 110b conversion, a speed/aero and both a Fuji GSW and GW 6x9 (and a graflex XLSW ), I'd like to argue that Frank is wrong but actually in terms of HANDHELD keepers in my experience (no matter how hard i try) actually he's right!

[Ari]

I gave up on the handheld 4x5 thingy after buying two fantastic Alpenhause conversions.
Under those circumstances, it just makes more sense to use higher-speed roll film and a light camera made for quick shooting.
Take out the LF when you mean to use its capabilities.

[rdenney]

I find myself using my Speed Graphic (handheld with rangefinder) just for Fujiroid, and that just for fun. The Fujiroid "contact prints" don't exercise the accuracy of the rangefinder too much, or expose too many of the faults of shooting hand-held.

The key element here is the lack of a camera support. The bigger the film, the bigger the expectations. But also, the less the depth of field, which leads to the smaller the aperture, which leads to the longer the shutter speed, which leads to the bigger the blur resulting from camera movement. And that's without even considering the weight and bulk. Using a flash solves several of these problems, but, of course, isn't suited to a lot of work.

For hand-held without flash, I've done pretty well up to 6x6 with shortish lenses. (I'd say 6x7 except that my 6x7 camera is a Pentax, which no amount of isometric muscle-flexing can restrain without a beefy and well-damped tripod.)

Rick "whose roll-film hand-held stuff has been sharpest with leaf-shuttered TLRs" Denney

[Corran]

If I ever meet you Rick I'll have to show you my special Pentax 67 grip. With MLU I shot lots of Velvia 50 and 100 at 1/15 or 1/30 with no problem with motion blur.

Not to say a TLR isn't easier to do that with, obviously it is! But it is possible.

[patrickjames]

I think there is an assumption that anyone using large format wants a super sharp picture with a ton of depth of field but why assume that? I only use large format for the tone. Depth of field is meaningless to me. Look at Corran's image of the painter above. That is typical of what you shoot when you want to handhold a camera. The great thing about the Polaroid conversions is you can easily take an image like that. I have had sharp results holding the camera down to 1/8 of a second; I just rest the camera on my shoulder. It is the only camera with which I can do that and still focus and see what I am shooting. The camera is not as fast to use as a Mamiya 7 though so I would still say most everyone would be better off with a Mamiya.

[nonuniform]

I'm a huge fan of handheld 4x5. I've tried just about everything, and have settled on the Crown Graphic. I love the Mamiya 7, and the Fuji rollfilm cameras. Honestly, the images don't have the same sense of "space", or I guess we call it 3D look now, that the 4x5 images do. My 135mm Xenotar produces images that I just love, and have never really been able to reproduce on medium format. It's personal, so, I'm not really able to say that someone else is "wrong", just that for me, and the way I like to shoot, 4x5 captures what I see better than other formats.

Right now, I have 3 cameras setup, a Crown with the 135 Xenotar, another Crown with the 150 Xenotar, and a Speed with the Aero. Honestly, I don't use the Aero handheld, and I'm testing out a 180 Heliar on a Technika V right now. The Technika's are impossible to handhold, at least I find it tiring, so, we'll see what happens with that setup.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The focusing knob on the Polaroids seems made for shooting handheld in vertical mode ("portrait") whereas the Crown is a horizontal frame without a revolving back. For those who've worked with both, how does this work out in actual use?

[cyrus]

The focusing knob on the Polaroids seems made for shooting handheld in vertical mode ("portrait") whereas the Crown is a horizontal frame without a revolving back. For those who've worked with both, how does this work out in actual use?

I'm a big fan of the 110B conversions (am selling one on ebay right now) and I don't have a problem with the focus either in portrait or landscape mode. It is a large camera so I don't think comparing it to a MF is fair -- apples and oranges. The bottom line is that while a MF neg can be "as good as " a 4x5 neg, the 4x5 is at least twice as large as the MF negative ... with all the attendant positive and desirable consequences of LF over MF. But if convenience alone was the issue, I'd go with a digital P&S.

[evan clarke]

I have a Wista RF and the rangefinder is quite nice. The body is cammed for three kenses and only requires a turn of a knob to select a focal length (as well as setting your lens at the proper stop)

[nonuniform]

Using the Crown handheld, I have no problem shooting in portrait orientation by turning the entire camera on its side. I've never used a 110b, so can't help you there.



The focusing knob on the Polaroids seems made for shooting handheld in vertical mode ("portrait") whereas the Crown is a horizontal frame without a revolving back. For those who've worked with both, how does this work out in actual use?

[Jay DeFehr]

I think a person would need to be printing 16x20+ to realize any improvements in IQ by 4x5 over MF, and that's assuming the 4x5 lens is as good, film plane as flat, focus as accurate, etc. From an ease of use standpoint, there's just no comparison, and while some might argue ease of use doesn't translate to IQ, I would argue it does, at least for me. I have a very nice Crown Graphic with a lovely 135mm Xenar, and when conditions are just right (subject not too close, plenty of light), I can make very nice images, with some effort. I could make it more convenient by using Grafmatic holders, but I don't have any, so I use regular double sided film holders instead. This limits me to about 6-10 exposures, depending on how eager I am to carry a lot of film holders. Having fewer exposures available is a limitation that can affect IQ, because it means opportunities can be lost, and requires enhanced resource management strategies. My CG doesn't have a built in light meter, so I have to either carry a handheld meter, or guess. Either option can affect IQ -- guessing is obvious, but using a handheld meter instead of a built in one is both slower, and requires a lot of fidgeting. Do I hold the camera in one hand and the meter in the other, or put the camera down, or hang it from a strap around my neck? Whatever I do, the subject could be moving, or the light changing.

If we imagine a competition to get the best prints from an outing, and we compare carrying and using a Mamiya 7 and 2 rolls of film to carrying and using a 4x5 RF, a handheld light meter, and ten film holders, or even two Grafmatic holders, I'd rather be the guy with the M7, unless print size exceeds 16x20.

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Those are some big globs of paint...

I usually use the "Wire" viewfinder on my Speed and just set my focus based on the distance scale.
I am very good at estimating distances, so I just look and say to myself, "That looks about ten feet" - etc.

Never had an out of focus one yet!

[SpeedGraphicMan]

If we imagine a competition to get the best prints from an outing, and we compare carrying and using a Mamiya 7 and 2 rolls of film to carrying and using a 4x5 RF, a handheld light meter, and ten film holders, or even two Grafmatic holders, I'd rather be the guy with the M7, unless print size exceeds 16x20.

I'd be the guy with the 4x5 even if the printing output was 5x7... Not a big fan of the Mamiya 7.

Now an RB or RZ67 is a different story!