Wanderlust 4x5 P&S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sperdynamite

Apologies if this has been answered before, but could anyone tell me what minimum focus distance would be with the Helical? I'll be using a Fuji 90/8 SW with mine. Also, as for focusing close, I have a blik RF, but I understand that this will probably be of limited use closer than 3ft. Anyone have any thoughts on that? For something really close I suppose I could use the GG, and just use the center point that is visible. Honestly, I bet my helical will be at infinity 90% of the time haha, but I'd still love to know what I can do close up. I can't freaking wait to get my TW90.

---

Well lets see, the helical has a total movement of 19mm and that should bring close focus of a 90mm lens to just about 20 inches with an image to object ratio of 1:4.73 with a field size of about 18X23 inches......Yeah, you might want to use the focus screen for that close although according to a DOF calculator you would have 2 inches in front and 2 inches in back of prime focus. That is with a blur circle of 1/10 of a mm, ok for enlargements of up to 8X10in., for 16X20in. enlargements cut that in half.

I've never handled or even seen a Blik but I would think they could be used for up to 3 feet if you remember to mentally correct for the difference between what the supplied open frame viewfinder sees at that distance and what the film sees.

Are you sure that the 90mm Fuji SuperWide will work in the TravelWide? I think I remember some mention that the rear element on some SuperWide lenses was too big to fit into the camera. Maybe I'm thinking of the f/5.6 SW lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larry Kellogg

Are you sure that the 90mm Fuji SuperWide will work in the TravelWide? I think I remember some mention that the rear element on some SuperWide lenses was too big to fit into the camera. Maybe I'm thinking of the f/5.6 SW lenses.

---

The 90/8 SW should work fine. It's pretty darn compact. I think you are thinking of the 5.6.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plywood

I've never handled or even seen a Blik but I would think they could be used for up to 3 feet if you remember to mentally correct for the difference between what the supplied open frame viewfinder sees at that distance and what the film sees.

---

I've been using the Blik instead of a viewfinder—at 1m, I focus on the eyes, and then point the rangefinder patch at the lips or chin before taking a shot. That gives the appropriate amount of headroom. It feels very similar to the SLR autofocus gesture, where you focus lock on the center of the frame and then recompose. If you practice, you can get pretty fast!

If you trust DOFMaster (which I have on my iPhone), and considering their assumption of a target 8x10 print (.1mm circle of confusion for 4x5), they say that a 90mm lens will provide acceptable sharpness from six feet to infinity at f/22, when focused at 12 feet.

At .05mm circle of confusion, which is 4x5 enlarged to 16x20, by their rules, f/22 would provide acceptable sharpness from 12 feet to infinity when focused to 24 feet.

Cut those distances in about half for the 65mm version.

I cut their circles of confusion in half again (.025mm) for critical work, but then I do critical work with my Sinar.

The key for a camera like this when one wants general sharpness is to stop it well down and compose appropriately. F/22 would allow a shutter speed of 1/25 for ISO 100 film in bright sun. That can (barely) be hand-held using a 90mm lens with 4x5. ISO 400 (like HP5+) would restore some working margin. For darker conditions, one will have to compromise something--either by toting a tripod (or finding a handy wall to brace it against) or use a wider aperture. But it's still not that restrictive--at f/11, working depth of acceptable sharpness is still 10-16 feet when focused at 12 feet. The Blik and the focus scale should certainly provide that level of accuracy and precision.

I don't think my 90mm Graflex Optar WA will do that well at wider apertures than f/22 anyway. That's even the sweet spot for an f/8 Super Angulon.

I would not want to use this camera closer than three feet (or even six feet)--that's not what a camera like this is for. 90 is a bit short on 4x5 for closer portraits. I will choose to make photos that are in the sweet spot for this camera when it's in my hands, rather than be frustrated that it isn't a view camera.

Rick "who will experiment with ground glass, too" Denney

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben Syverson

I've been using the Blik instead of a viewfinder—at 1m, I focus on the eyes, and then point the rangefinder patch at the lips or chin before taking a shot. That gives the appropriate amount of headroom. It feels very similar to the SLR autofocus gesture, where you focus lock on the center of the frame and then recompose. If you practice, you can get pretty fast!

---

Yeah, I'm sure this will be fine, but in my case, my subjects are usually moving, and in the worst case I'm moving and the subjects are moving. That's why I was talking about zone focusing.

I don't expect the TravelWide to replace my Leica for street work. My rabble rousing to get a faster 4x5 film, like Delta 3200, led nowhere, so shutter speeds are going to be slow. I guess I'll opt for more static shots with the TravelWide. I'd like 1/500th@f/22 all the time, LOL.

I've used this Human Rangefinder for a number of cameras with success. Tick the box if you want a hyperfocal distance chart on the card too.

https://tomchuk.com/misc/rf/

RR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larry Kellogg

I don't expect the TravelWide to replace my Leica for street work. My rabble rousing to get a faster 4x5 film, like Delta 3200, led nowhere, so shutter speeds are going to be slow. I guess I'll opt for more static shots with the TravelWide. I'd like 1/500th@f/22 all the time, LOL.

---

I know people who only shoot HP5 at 1600. That's gonna be my choice if I want to try some non static subjects. I'm not going to use this as a P&S though, more like a travel 4x5 that is slower than my Nikon but SO. MUCH. FASTER. than even my Speedgraphic. Plus on the street in Brookyln I'm not totally comfortable under a dark cloth or even with just the viewing hood of a Speed. The TW90 will solve that for me. There will be a reckoning of Portra 400 sheets!!!!

Regarding the rangefinder stuff, one member here took action photos with his Aero Ektar by pre-focusing the lens and rangefinder to a certain distance, and then using the RF to "focus" by moving back and forth until the images aligned and then shoot. Quicker than aligning an uncoupled RF and then adjusting the lens.

The Blik RF that I bought on eBay is misaligned and I might pop it open and try calibrating it, but using the above method may be all I need for fine focusing at wider apertures.

We'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corran

The Blik RF that I bought on eBay is misaligned and I might pop it open and try calibrating it,

---

Mine was messed up, too. I seem to remember all the adjustments are under the foot, and that it's all a bit counter-intuitive, but eventually I did figure it out. Something like one screw loosens to allow another to adjust, then tightening down the first moves everything from where you wanted it while making a second adjustment. But it can be done. In the end I thought it was quite clever.