Guidance request - Sinar models, LF dumb questions, other opinions

[Doc Chevalier]

Hello,

I am brand new to the forum as I am looking to get (back) into LF photography after a 30 year absence. To my chagrin, I've forgotten most everything I allegedly knew.

Back when I was an apprentice, my master used a Sinar 4x5 for studio work and as it is the only line I know and as there appear to be a decent variety in the eBay world, I'm looking at this line. I see F, F+, F2, C and P models for sale. As best I can tell the F2 is the latest of the field models, the C is an F front and P rear and the P is the first in the P lineup. It looks to my untrained eye that the P have the most granular levels of control. I have the brochure from butkus.org, but lack of knowledge is leading me to non-conclusions so I wanted to ask experts. My use cases (initially) are some studio type still life images (for practice) and then outdoor landscapes, on black and white film as I suspect (but have not checked) that Ektachromes are long since gone. My intent is to process my own negatives and then scan them for post processing. I believe that there are digital options for 4x5 but I admit to some confusion here. With the patience of members, I have a number of questions.

1. For my described use cases, is one system better than another, ie F2, C or P?
2. All the cameras listed except one, do not have lenses, lens boards, shutters, dark cloths or film holders. When I worked 4x5 before I loaded film holders and got to release the shutter on the second camera. I have no expertise to speak of so I don't know what else I would need to be operational.
3. I see many lenses mounted on Sinar DB lens boards. I think that these require a digital back and presumably some level of electronic controls. Should I be looking at this route instead of film? Where would I look for a digital back and what would people recommend?
4. If I chose to start with film, and later wanted to go digital, what if anything would be reusable at that time?
5. I see a variety of sizes of Copal shutters. Is there a simple reference that explains what the numbers mean and how one would choose which one to use?
6. Does each lens require its own unique shutter and lens board?
7. I've looked on Amazon for books and there is nearly nothing still in print. Are there older books I should be looking for used?
8. The people I've sent questions to from eBay are all camera resellers and seem helpful. Is this a safe place for a newbie to be buying? I live north of Toronto and the large "pro" retailers don't do any LF at all. There may be smaller specialists, I found one nice fellow but his focus is 8x10 wood frame cameras, not really my interest at this time.
9. What's the perspective on the availability of film? I can readily find B+W negative chemistry, but not whatever is needed from a gear perspective to develop 4x5 negs. I still have an old patterson tank for 35mm but know it won't be suitable.
10. My intent is to use LF as a means to rebuild my "eye" Since switching to digital after nearly two decades away from film about five years ago, I think I am making better images than I have in the past, but have noticed an increased tendency not to "see" the image properly before releasing the shutter. I am hopeful that the disciplines involved in LF will help me achieve a better balance. Opinions requested. Am I nuts?

Thank you all very much for your patience.

Ross

[kgm]

If you intend to use the camera for landscape photography after some initial studio use, you may want to consider a field camera (flatbed), which is a little easier to transport. But people use both field and monorail cameras in the field. I wouldn't worry too much about learning to use something other than a Sinar. I started with a Deardorff 4x5 Special over 25 years ago, and figured that out (with the help of Steve Simmons' book) without a lot of difficulty, other than loading the film backwards the first time.
In addition to the items you listed, you'll also need a light meter. The questions about switching to digital are a little more complex. I should state that I use only film in my large format cameras. There are digital backs that can be used with many different large format cameras, but the sensors are not 4x5 in size, so the sensor would not show as much of the area that your lenses can cover. Also, the resolution of large digital sensors can show the flaws of inferior lenses. Both Schneider and Rodenstock make a digital line of lenses that produce greater resolution (and, I believe, that also tend to be shorter in focal length due to the smaller size of the sensors. They are also very expensive. So, it's possible to use lenses intended for use with film, but you'll lose some of the resolution that the large format sensors are capable of showing.
The differences in the Copal shutters are just to fit different sized lenses. I've never seen anything other than Copal 0, 1 or 3 shutters (what happened to Copal 2?). Smaller lenses use the Copal 0, smallish to moderate sized lenses use the Copal 1, and larger lenses use the 3. It's not too far from the truth to say that most wide angle lenses (say 58mm to 110mm) will use the 0, moderate wide angle and normal lenses (120mm or 135mm to 210mm) will use the 1, and longer focal lengths (240mm and up) will use the 3. Any seller should be able to tell you what shutter is needed for a particular lens. The only other difference is that the Copal 0 and 1 have shutter speeds up to 1/400", while the Copal 3 only goes to 1/125".
Badger Graphics is a retailer, located in Wisconsin in the U.S., that handles a lot of large format equipment, and that has knowledgeable staff. I don't recall whether they handle Sinar, but they have a number of brands, as well as lenses and other necessities.
Because large format does some things that other formats cannot handle nearly as well, and because large format digital sensors are so expensive, I expect large format film to be the last to go, and I think that will be a ways off yet. There may be fewer choices over time, especially in color films, but I think that there will still be a few manufacturers. I wouldn't be too surprised to see 35mm film replaced by digital almost entirely in the near future, but there are enough of us who want view camera movements but who can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars for a large format digital setup to make it worthwhile for some manufacturers to continue to produce film for us.
Good luck.

[Peter Gomena]

You have a lot of questions about diving into an expensive endeavor. I suggest you rub elbows with some other LF photographers who can help you decide what will work best for you. I know Rob Skeoch is in Canada, possibly in your area, and hosts gatherings of LF photographers to talk shop and share work. http://www.bigcameraworkshops.com/

Sinar gear is good equipment. There is a lot of it on the used market right now and prices are probably as reasonable as they ever will be. A Sinar P camera in the studio is an excellent setup, but in the field they are pretty heavy. I owned a F2, and found it to be fine in the studio but a little shaky in the field.

DB shutters are available in all-mechanical as well as electronic versions. They do break down and are neither easy nor cheap to repair. I would suggest acquiring individually-shuttered lenses.There are a ton of good, modern lenses for sale out there. If you do decide to stick with a Sinar system, there is a binocular viewer that eliminates the need for a dark cloth.

[Adamphotoman]

Look at the Sinar Norma. Philip Morgan has one for sale on the forum. It will give you most of the movements. It is fairly light and robust.
I use a scan back with my Sinars. The Apo Sironar S will perform well but the sensor will show up poor lenses.

The DB lenses are only a good choice if you have a Sinar shutter in good working condition.

BTW the scan back does not require a shutter. I purchased a couple of manual DB lenses. They are cheaper, however they are not lighter as one might expect.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've known people to take a Sinar P into the field, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's heavy, awkward to pack, and there's more that can get messed up by dirt and sand. It's easier to make an F work in the studio than to make a P practical in the field. The main functional difference is that a P uses asymmetric movements, so that you can see the effect of rear tilts and swings immediately without refocusing (if you follow the instructions) and can transfer those movements to the front standard as needed with the handy scales, while the F uses a DOF calculator to determine the focus spread and calculate the tilt or swing you need to achieve your goal. I've used both as well as cameras that have neither of these aids, and you can manage with any of them.

Read the articles on the main lfphoto.info page for general information about getting started in large format.

[GG12]

On the digital-film interface: technically speaking, yes, you can mount a digital back on a LF camera, but practically speaking, it doesn't work to well. First, the sensors are small, and the coverage minimal. With a sliding or stitching back (read Sexton on Luminous Landscape about one of these stitching backs), it can improve, but the reality is that the precision necessary for digital backs is an order of magnitude greater than needed for film, much less LF film, and thus the LF cameras don't really work too well for that, try as one might.

The other issue is cost: digital gear, especially backs, are big money, and you can get into a whole LF setup, working, ready to go, with lenses and everything you need for film use for a lot less than the cost of the back. For digital printing, you will have to scan the LF negative, but apart from the hassle, its pretty easy, and even a modest scanner (Epson 700) does a nice enough job of that.

Certainly to get back into LF, film is the way to go. If you decide you like it, and you must have digital, you will end up changing practically everything. People say you have to upgrade the lenses, but I'm having a decent use of an older 58 SA XL lens from 4x5 days on a digital back. More important for digital work is having a back (!) and a rigid and precise body, and its simply not worth making that committment now unless you are sure you want to go that direction. Keep in mind that digital view camera work is typically based off the 6x9 cm format, not 4x5. The stitching back that Sexton reviewed is one of the few exceptions, and while a little clunky, does give life to the 4x5 setups.

[Stephane]

If I had to go back to a sinar system, I would get:
- sinar norma with tilt-head for the field - light, easy to use, solid, can protect ground glass during transportation, easy packing in rucksack.
- rear standard and bellow frame of a sinar p in studio (and using the rest of the norma) p-line is great for studio, very solid, heavy, precise, easy to use, only self locking knobs.

I would forget about the f-line.

[Adamphotoman]

I agree completely with Stephane,
I use exactly what was suggested, except that I use a 216 mega pixel scanning back for fine art repro and for tabletop / still life.
The first pic is a Sinar Norm with a 180 lens. The next shot is a hybrid with a P rear and a Norma front standard. Forget about lugging this one into the field.
This one requires long extension. 480mm apo Ronar focused on a 6X9 inch area.

[Bernice Loui]

For field use, it has been a 5x7 C for over 20+ years, recently upgraded to a C2 from the purchase of a 4x5 C2 system. What is nice about Sinar is the system is large and it's interchangeability to build up a camera based on imaging needs. For indoor work, I'll put the P2 front with the P2 rear and this makes a nice camera to use due to the geared drives and etc.. It also become a HEAVY camera which is why the C makes a reasonable trade-off for weight, stability and size. The P rear also allows format changes with ease.

On my current 5x7 C2 with the standard rail is cut down to 9" overall so it will fit into a 4x5 F case with 4 lenses, two 6" extensions, Sinar shutter, Spot meter, dark cloth, ground glass magnifier and etc using custom cut foam.

My first view camera was an old 4x5 Sinar F with the low profile rail clamp (not Norma) it was OK for rigidity/stability but it was easy to use, what I learned on and low cost (IMO, a good value).

As time passed, I got to own and use a number of Linhof Technika / Kardan, Toyo and etc.. yet the Sinar always felt ergonomically best for me.

Due to my bias towards some "vintage and barrel lenses" the Sinar shutter makes it all work. The Sinar-Copal mechanical shutter works well as long as it has been cared for and maintained, the digital shutter is a problem child.

Do consider a Sinar Pan-tilt head as it simply works well in many ways.


Bernice

[Ken Lee]

Another consideration is to keep the db mounted lenses, and adapt a field camera to the Sinar shutter. Some have done that here, and at least one manufacturer (Shen Hao) makes a wooden field camera which takes the Sinar shutter.

There's "the field" (trekking long distances) and then there's walking a reasonable distance from the car. I have walked from the car with my Sinar P, even with a 5x7 back on the camera. You can carry it in a canvas tote bag. You might find this short article helpful: Carry Your Gear on a Budget (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/index.php#Gear).

[rdenney]

1. For my described use cases...

First, thanks for laying our your use cases.

Answers to your questions, using your numbers, to supplement what others have written:

1. All three have been used in all of your use cases. But I agree with the notion that an F2 would be easier in the studio than a P in the field. The big difference with the P is not so much the asymmetric movements, but rather that the movements are gear-driven, versus the friction movements on the F series cameras. That makes the F series cameras lighter and more compact, but with less repeatability and a little less rigidity. The main difference between the F+ differs from the F by providing a P-type rail clamp, which is tall. The F2 differs from the F2 in providing a front standard with gear-driven focus and a solid design, versus the loose-link clamp on the F front standard. The later F2 cameras differ from those made in their first year or two by providing separate shift and swing locks, versus the single combined lock on the earlier model. There are smaller differences, but that sums it it up. The C is just a camera with a P rear and an F front. The Norma is the Sinar camera that was made before the F and P cameras were introduced in 1971. It's beautifully made, but they are all old. If you can get one in wonderful working condition, it's a joy to use. It will be priced about the same as an F2. I use an F2 myself, and find it a joy to use in the field. My previous camera, which I used for 20 years, was a Cambo SC. Very nice and functional, but I never thanked myself for buying it the way I have the F2.

2. Most modern lenses use Copal or Compur shutters made to standard sizes, particularly No. 0, No. 1, and No. 3. Most Sinar boards already have holes sized for one of these, but there are some differences depending on retaining rings. It's best to buy a lens, measure the size opening it needs, and the buy a board with that opening size. Sinars have "international" backs, which is the same thing as Graflok, and will therefore take film holders that use that locking method (which is most roll-film holders), in addition to standard slide-in film holders. Of those, any will work. The standard brands (though made by the same company) are Lisco and Fidelity, but Riteway is another brand. They are all similar and they all work. Toyo made a somewhat better model but they are harder to find. You'll also need a loupe--a plastic 8x will work to start with. And you'll need cable releases. You may already have a suitable tripod, but if you buy a Sinar, start saving for a Sinar tilt-head, which is by far the best head for use with a Sinar camera.

3. DB mounts are for lenses designed to be used with the Sinar Auto-Aperture shutter, which is not related to the use of digital backs. Having access to that shutter is one of the advantages of the Sinar system, but most people starting out just buy lenses in shutters and save the acquisition of an Auto-Aperture shutter for use with barrel lenses later on. The Auto-Aperture shutter mounts on the backside of the front standard, and then the bellows hook to it. They are not that cheap (about $400-500 for one that includes the necessary cables).

4. If you want to switch to digital, everything will be reusable. But cameras that work well with smaller digital backs need very prices movements, because you'll be using shorter lenses to go with that smaller format, and shorter lenses need smaller movements to achieve the same effect. The P would be the choice, but I consider that use case sufficiently different from your other use cases to suggest a separate solution. 4x5 cameras are quite fiddly when used with digital backs, unless they are the specific models designed for them. The view cameras best suited for digital backs derived from smaller-formats in the first place. Given the cost of a digital back (which is into five figures in many cases), the cost of a Linhof M679 or a Sinar P3 doesn't seem so painful. That does not apply to the scanning backs, which are larger and will work fine in a regular 4x5 camera--they were designed to work there. But the scanning back has its own issues. Most would recommend optimizing for film, which is inexpensive to do, at first. By the way, there are no 4x5" digital options that don't require stitching. But we can dream.

5. http://www.skgrimes.com/products/mounting-flanges/metric-stock-flanges Remember that all lenses made for the last 25 years at least have used either No. 0, No. 1, or No. 3 shutters.

6. Yes. (DB mounts were a strategy to share one shutter with a range of lenses, but it's a Sinar system only and will limit what you can find if you tie yourself to it).

7. Ansel Adams The Camera, in addition to other suggestions. If you do black and white, also get The Negative and The Print. Scanning renders some of that obsolete, but it's part of any black-and-white film photographer's basic knowledge.

8. KEH.COM is a safe used-equipment supplier. Ebay is sometimes good, but you pays yer nickel and you takes yer chances.

9. Black and white is probably safe for a long time, because it can be produced in small batches by boutique producers. Color film is another matter, and we are all a bit scared about that these days. But color negative film is still (barely) available, and color transparency film is, too. Kodak Ektar is probably the best of the available negative films, and Fuji is still providing E-6 films in 4x5 sheets.

10. Digital has a wonderfully short feedback loop that makes it quite efficient to experiment with lots of things in a short time. But it's also so facile that it can lull us into too much dependence on speed, and not enough on understanding. Yes, what you say will resonate with many here.

Rick "good luck" Denney

[Mike Lease]

I'm also a Sinar owner (F1) and mostly use it outdoors. It is certainly a quality camera and a pleasure to use even if it is one of their lower-end models. If you expect to do most of your landscape work while hiking/backpacking then I'll echo what others have said and suggest looking at a field camera. My F1 isn't all that heavy but it is bulky and not a lot of fun to carry around for several hours - most monorail cameras will be like that. I think it was Edward Weston that said something like "nothing over 100 yards from the car is photogenic" and if that is your outlook as well then there are a lot of reasons to use a monorail camera. I would suggest before selecting Sinar for their extensive system consider what parts and pieces of that system would be useful for you.

I have had reasonably good luck buying equipment on Ebay. The key is doing enough research to know what you should expect to pay for a certain camera, lens, etc. and keep in mind that if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. It pays to be patient and watch items that you are interested in several times to see what they sell for. You should also be willing to walk away from an item if something doesn't seem right about it. The main warning flags for me are when the seller doesn't post enough pictures to get a good idea of the condition of an item or when their description doesn't match what you see in the pictures. I think the biggest risk is in shutters that "work" but the speeds are off so in my mind I've started adding $80-$100 for shutter work to the cost of a lens. Personally, I think most people selling their own gear and real camera stores that sell on Ebay generally are honest and upfront about the condition of what they are selling. I tend to avoid people selling camera collections from estate sales and non-camera stores since their descriptions may be off or inadequate and many of them don't have the experience to fairly assess the condition of a camera or lens and shutter.

Good luck and welcome back to LF. As some people on the forum will say, don't spend too much time worrying about what to get. Buy what you think will work for you and start using it. If it isn't what you want and you paid a fair price for it then you should be able to sell it for what you paid for it.

Mike

[Doc Chevalier]

First, thanks for laying our your use cases.

Answers to your questions, using your numbers, to supplement what others have written:

1. All three have been used in all of your use cases. But I agree with the notion that an F2 would be easier in the studio than a P in the field. The big difference with the P is not so much the asymmetric movements, but rather that the movements are gear-driven, versus the friction movements on the F series cameras. That makes the F series cameras lighter and more compact, but with less repeatability and a little less rigidity. The main difference between the F+ differs from the F by providing a P-type rail clamp, which is tall. The F2 differs from the F2 in providing a front standard with gear-driven focus and a solid design, versus the loose-link clamp on the F front standard. The later F2 cameras differ from those made in their first year or two by providing separate shift and swing locks, versus the single combined lock on the earlier model. There are smaller differences, but that sums it it up. The C is just a camera with a P rear and an F front. The Norma is the Sinar camera that was made before the F and P cameras were introduced in 1971. It's beautifully made, but they are all old. If you can get one in wonderful working condition, it's a joy to use. It will be priced about the same as an F2. I use an F2 myself, and find it a joy to use in the field. My previous camera, which I used for 20 years, was a Cambo SC. Very nice and functional, but I never thanked myself for buying it the way I have the F2.

2. Most modern lenses use Copal or Compur shutters made to standard sizes, particularly No. 0, No. 1, and No. 3. Most Sinar boards already have holes sized for one of these, but there are some differences depending on retaining rings. It's best to buy a lens, measure the size opening it needs, and the buy a board with that opening size. Sinars have "international" backs, which is the same thing as Graflok, and will therefore take film holders that use that locking method (which is most roll-film holders), in addition to standard slide-in film holders. Of those, any will work. The standard brands (though made by the same company) are Lisco and Fidelity, but Riteway is another brand. They are all similar and they all work. Toyo made a somewhat better model but they are harder to find. You'll also need a loupe--a plastic 8x will work to start with. And you'll need cable releases. You may already have a suitable tripod, but if you buy a Sinar, start saving for a Sinar tilt-head, which is by far the best head for use with a Sinar camera.

3. DB mounts are for lenses designed to be used with the Sinar Auto-Aperture shutter, which is not related to the use of digital backs. Having access to that shutter is one of the advantages of the Sinar system, but most people starting out just buy lenses in shutters and save the acquisition of an Auto-Aperture shutter for use with barrel lenses later on. The Auto-Aperture shutter mounts on the backside of the front standard, and then the bellows hook to it. They are not that cheap (about $400-500 for one that includes the necessary cables).

4. If you want to switch to digital, everything will be reusable. But cameras that work well with smaller digital backs need very prices movements, because you'll be using shorter lenses to go with that smaller format, and shorter lenses need smaller movements to achieve the same effect. The P would be the choice, but I consider that use case sufficiently different from your other use cases to suggest a separate solution. 4x5 cameras are quite fiddly when used with digital backs, unless they are the specific models designed for them. The view cameras best suited for digital backs derived from smaller-formats in the first place. Given the cost of a digital back (which is into five figures in many cases), the cost of a Linhof M679 or a Sinar P3 doesn't seem so painful. That does not apply to the scanning backs, which are larger and will work fine in a regular 4x5 camera--they were designed to work there. But the scanning back has its own issues. Most would recommend optimizing for film, which is inexpensive to do, at first. By the way, there are no 4x5" digital options that don't require stitching. But we can dream.

5. http://www.skgrimes.com/products/mounting-flanges/metric-stock-flanges Remember that all lenses made for the last 25 years at least have used either No. 0, No. 1, or No. 3 shutters.

6. Yes. (DB mounts were a strategy to share one shutter with a range of lenses, but it's a Sinar system only and will limit what you can find if you tie yourself to it).

7. Ansel Adams The Camera, in addition to other suggestions. If you do black and white, also get The Negative and The Print. Scanning renders some of that obsolete, but it's part of any black-and-white film photographer's basic knowledge.

8. KEH.COM is a safe used-equipment supplier. Ebay is sometimes good, but you pays yer nickel and you takes yer chances.

9. Black and white is probably safe for a long time, because it can be produced in small batches by boutique producers. Color film is another matter, and we are all a bit scared about that these days. But color negative film is still (barely) available, and color transparency film is, too. Kodak Ektar is probably the best of the available negative films, and Fuji is still providing E-6 films in 4x5 sheets.

10. Digital has a wonderfully short feedback loop that makes it quite efficient to experiment with lots of things in a short time. But it's also so facile that it can lull us into too much dependence on speed, and not enough on understanding. Yes, what you say will resonate with many here.

Rick "good luck" Denney

Thanks a ton for your very detailed answers. By building on the other responses, I feel much more informed, to the point where I can make a decision with some level of confidence that I won't be burning money.

Ross

[Doc Chevalier]

I am immensely grateful to all who have responded offering guidance, insight and opinion. I am more convinced than ever that the 4x5 route is one I should be taking and while I will be a novice to the format, believe it will help me get out of the box I am in today. I am very impressed by the generosity of those in this forum and hope that I may be able to pay it back in areas that I do know very well at some point. Thank you all and a very Happy New Year to you!

Ross

[rdenney]

Ross,

Reading back through my post, I made so many typos I'm surprised you could read it. Must've been dozing off while I was typing. Sheesh.

In Answer 1, the F has the short rail clamp, the F+ the tall one. Both use a clamp-over front standard instead of the solid front standard with the geared focus as used on the F2. The early F2 continues the F's single control for swing and shift, while the later ones have separate controls. The F1 (which someone else mentioned) uses the same clamp-over front standard as the F and F+, but otherwise has the same cosmetics as an F2.

And the smaller digital backs use shorter lenses that need precise movements. Yes, they may be pricier, too. (Two possible interpretations of my typo, heh.)

Rick "in case you actually need to know what I wrote" Denney