PDA

View Full Version : Reducing back question



jonreid
27-Dec-2012, 02:56
Merry Christmas everybody,
I have a SINAR Norma 5x7 and mostly shoot B+W in 5x7. I do want the option of shooting 4x5 colour occasionally so I purchased a 4x5 rear standard for it. Turns out not to be my best purchase and I'm now convinced that it is worn where the tilt center-detent mechanism resides and I cannot 'pair' it to the front standard in terms of getting it parallel. I don't want to alter the front standards tilt centre-detent as it it nicely matched to the 5x7 rear standard.
I've been on the look out for a replacement 4x5 rear standard that I can replace it with or butcher to get the best possible standard out of two. So far though I haven't seen any I thought reasonably priced.
Scouring the auction site last night a saw a Norma 5x7 to 4x5 reducing back. So, what are the advantages/disadvantages of tossing the 4x5 rear standard and using a reducing back?

Thanks in advance,

Jon

Emil Schildt
27-Dec-2012, 06:29
I have both - and I am almost only using the reducing back.

Mostly because it is easier and much quicker to change from one size to another...

Uncle Jim
27-Dec-2012, 13:47
Hi Jon,

I have reducing backs for most of my cameras. They are the way to go. You can shoot multiple formats on a trip this way, and only have to take the film holders,
the back, and what ever lens you want to use for the reduced size film. It could even be one of the wider lenses that you for the larger format. It's a great combination.

uncle jim

jonreid
28-Dec-2012, 00:45
Would a reducing back result in the film being a little further away from the lens than it would with a 4x5 standard? If so this could be a problem with lenses with minimal coverage, notably my 90mm.
I only use it when I have to and have only about 4mm wriggle room with it on 5x7.

Jim Jones
28-Dec-2012, 08:12
A reducing back can easily be constructed to place the film in the same plane as a full size back. Since this is rarely critical, it may not always be so. Certainly I've never considered it when improvising reducing backs.

Bob Salomon
28-Dec-2012, 09:45
Would a reducing back result in the film being a little further away from the lens than it would with a 4x5 standard? If so this could be a problem with lenses with minimal coverage, notably my 90mm.
I only use it when I have to and have only about 4mm wriggle room with it on 5x7.

Linhof used to put a serial number on their 57 and 810 Kardan backs and when you ordered the reducing back you would include the serial number of your back and Linhof would supply a reducing back that maintained the same film plane with the smaller size. This was a great time saver if you wanted to switch and record just the part of the scene that the 45 back would cover. Especially useful when running exposure and processing tests in catalog or commercial product studios. They did not want to refocus. Wanted everything on the camera, except the back, to remain in exactly the same position.

Linhof stopped doing that 15 or 20 years ago. Biggest drawback to supplying backs that were registered to a specific camera was that all of the reducing backs became special order items.

jonreid
30-Dec-2012, 15:53
Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm not going to be constructing or modifying a back. The choice for me is to get a reducing back or a better quality rear standard. I won't be shooting the same scene in both formats either, it'll be an either or situation for me...

Jon