PDA

View Full Version : verdict on Horseman VH



HeinrichVoelkel
23-Nov-2012, 06:18
another question regarding the horseman vh. how is the verdict on this camera. I want to shoot roll film, because of convenience, but want to be able shoot 4x5 as well.
how big or cumbersome is the vh compared to a 4x5 camera. unfortunately I don't know anybody with one to handle it prior to purchase.

AJ Edmondson
23-Nov-2012, 08:53
As well as I can recall there wasn't a lot of difference between the VH and a Wista RF. I am sure there must have been some difference and I don't recall ever having done an A-B comparison but you can probably pull up specs easily enough.

Oren Grad
23-Nov-2012, 09:01
The VH is considerably smaller than a Wista 45RF and more than 50% lighter (less than 4 lb compared to more than 6 lb). The VH is rugged and versatile. The main limitations of the VH are that its long minimum flange-to-film distance means you can't use lenses shorter than about 65mm, and some users find the controls small and cramped.

Phil Hudson
23-Nov-2012, 13:43
If the inconveniences that Oren mentions don't put you off the Horseman field cameras, the 45 FA might be a better bet. It's only slightly bigger and heavier but has the same design as the VH. A 6x9cm roll film holder for the FA is probably easier to find than the 4x5 conversion back for the VH (which might even further limit the useable lenses anyway).

Just a thought......

HeinrichVoelkel
23-Nov-2012, 14:16
If the inconveniences that Oren mentions don't put you off the Horseman field cameras, the 45 FA might be a better bet. It's only slightly bigger and heavier but has the same design as the VH. A 6x9cm roll film holder for the FA is probably easier to find than the 4x5 conversion back for the VH (which might even further limit the useable lenses anyway).

Just a thought......

Good one, actually I would like to use a 47mm lens in the field, is there no chance for this (dropping the bed) on the VH?

Oren Grad
23-Nov-2012, 14:16
I don't recommend the 4x5 conversion backs for the 6x9 Horseman technical cameras - way too klunky. The cameras themselves are cheap enough these days that if you want 4x5 but like the Horseman design, might as well just buy a 45FA/HD/HF and be done with it. Just remember that because the basic design is still sized for a 6x9 camera, these have relatively limited movements and bellows draw for a 4x5.

6x9 rollholders are relatively easy to find for either the 6x9 or 4x5 cameras.

Oren Grad
23-Nov-2012, 14:18
Good one, actually I would like to use a 47mm lens in the field, is there no chance for this (dropping the bed) on the VH?

The problem isn't dropping the bed, it's that the minimum flange-to-film distance is somewhere in the ballpark of 70mm. You wouldn't be able to focus a 47 SA XL, let alone a plain SA.

EDIT: Scratch that. I just took out my VH to check this. You can manage a shorter FFD by hanging the front standard on the very edge of the focusing bed. But you can't tilt the bed with the standard set that way.

I'll spare you the complicated details, but the bottom line is the same - the VH is not a practical camera for a 47.

ic-racer
23-Nov-2012, 14:46
The problem isn't dropping the bed, it's that the minimum flange-to-film distance is somewhere in the ballpark of 70mm. You wouldn't be able to focus a 47 SA XL, let alone a plain SA.

EDIT: Scratch that. I just took out my VH to check this. You can manage a shorter FFD by hanging the front standard on the very edge of the focusing bed. But you can't tilt the bed with the standard set that way.

I'll spare you the complicated details, but the bottom line is the same - the VH is not a practical camera for a 47.

Hanging the front standard on the back rails just allows the 65mm Horseman lens to be used. As Oren posts, 47 is not practical on these cameras. There were some posts about 8 to 10 years ago about using a focusing helicoid and putting the front standard on the back rails and getting a 47 to focus. Of course Horseman already solved the problem for you with the Horseman SW612.

dlin
23-Nov-2012, 15:26
A 65mm lens works on the VH-R without having to drop the bed. However, movements are somewhat limited due to the compression of the bellows and the physical constraints of the clamshell body design. With longer lenses (all the way up to 210mm in my case), a full range of movements is available and quite useful for such a compact roll-film camera. The compact size and light weight are major advantages, in my opinion. Let me know if you have any questions regarding actual use.

All the best,
Daniel

HeinrichVoelkel
24-Nov-2012, 09:08
Seriously? The 65 doesn't work well on the VH? Dammit. Back to the drawing board. There are not many choices left.

Sal Santamaura
24-Nov-2012, 09:55
...There are not many choices left.I have a VH. Were I in your position now, this is the camera I'd get


https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3164

along with a Mamiya 6x8 back. That combination would be ideal; the negatives have an aspect ratio similar to whole plate, there are nine of them per roll (so they fit in a standard storage page), their spacing means reverse-curl film buckling is almost eliminated and the ground glass back swings open so it need not be removed to attach the holder.

This camera will focus all except the single-coated version of the 47mm Super Angulon to infinity, since its minimum extension is 52mm and the flange-focal distances (FFDs) of those lenses range from 52.2mm to (for the XL) 59.1mm. Even a single-coated 47mm, with its 51.6mm FFD, could be accommodated by mounting it on a recessed Technika-style board, which the camera accepts.

By the way, I fully agree with those who have suggested not using a medium format view camera to shoot 4x5 as well as not using a 4x5 view camera to shoot medium format roll film.

dave_whatever
24-Nov-2012, 10:59
I have a VH. Were I in your position now, this is the camera I'd get


https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3164

along with a Mamiya 6x8 back. That combination would be ideal; the negatives have an aspect ratio similar to whole plate, there are nine of them per roll (so they fit in a standard storage page), their spacing means reverse-curl film buckling is almost eliminated and the ground glass back swings open so it need not be removed to attach the holder.

This camera will focus all except the single-coated version of the 47mm Super Angulon to infinity, since its minimum extension is 52mm and the flange-focal distances (FFDs) of those lenses range from 52.2mm to (for the XL) 59.1mm. Even a single-coated 47mm, with its 51.6mm FFD, could be accommodated by mounting it on a recessed Technika-style board, which the camera accepts.

By the way, I fully agree with those who have suggested not using a medium format view camera to shoot 4x5 as well as not using a 4x5 view camera to shoot medium format roll film.

A word of caution: I had the 4x5 version of the shenhao TFC in the above link. It was fine for 4x5 but wasn't really as rigid or prescise as I'd like for 6x7/8/9, especially in precisely applying the tiny amount of tilt you will need with say a 65mm lens. I think the front standard on mine was also slightly out of vertical, meaning you had to level it with a spiritlevel after every time you used tilt. Plus the stock ground glass is crap. Based on my experience I would think twice about going with the 6x9 version especially if short lenses are your think. For using wides on 120 you really need absolute parallelism and a level of presicsion the shenhao (or at least the one I had) hasn't got.

If I was Heinrich and hell bent on shooting a 120 field camera I'd forget about any of the clamshell design cameras and look at finding a good used Ebony RSW45 or SW45. No limits on wideangles, and rigid and parallel enough for 6x9. As a bonus you can use it for 4x5 or 6x12 too.

Obviously geared tilt would be nice for fulltime 6x9 shooting but you'll have to get an Arca 6x9 for that.

Dan Fromm
24-Nov-2012, 12:40
Heinrich, if you want to shoot short lenses and can do without a rangefinder then you might consider a Century Graphic or 2x3 Crown (with Graflok). To get an idea of what can be done with them, see http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf

They aren't for everyone and may well not meet your needs.

ic-racer
24-Nov-2012, 14:02
Seriously? The 65 doesn't work well on the VH? Dammit. Back to the drawing board. There are not many choices left.

My comment above about hanging the 65 on the back of the rail was inadvertently about the 4x5 FA. In terms of using the Horseman Topcor 65mm on the VH, it is an excellent combination with plenty of potential for movements.

BTMarcais
26-Nov-2012, 22:02
I had no problem using a 65 on my VH. Wider would be tough- I was using a 47mm fl pinhole setup, and would just keep the standard on the back rails and drop the bed- for an actual lens you would have to have some sort of helical, and pretty much forgo using any front movements. (at least you'd get back swings and tilts...)
Doable, but a bit of a pain.
-Brian