Newbie needing advice on LF camera

[kazzam]

Hi folks,

Looking for some general advice on what to choose for my first LF camera/lens. I shoot landscapes, closeups of things like leaves, tree barks (not true macro). I will also shoot the occasional architecture shot. I shoot 35mm typically at 21- 24mm. MF at 40mm. I'm a little confused by the stuff I'm reading and not really sure which lens/camera combo to choose.

I'm looking at a Walker xl with 72mm, or one of the shen hao PTB cameras. I know the Walker has a fixed rear standard and the shen hao has a movable. One is resin, the other is wood.

I would also at some point like to add a MF back or a digital back.

So my questions are...

Are these cameras good for me or should I be looking at something different. Lens combinations etc.

Do I need rear movement and what are the pros and cons of not having this feature on the camera. I like the near-far type of shot so this is important for me.

Is the 72 mm lens (it's a schneider super angalon 5.6 xl) the way to go?

Another question, focusing. I am not sure how all these movements work but this will be part of the learning process for me. I've read a few threads about lines, angles, etc and it kind of confuses me. I just want to know the easiest way to focus the camera. Is there a dummies guide to focussing that I can learn these techniques. I don't want to know deep physics. I just want to know how to focus and take nice pictures.

Really grateful for any advice.

Thanks in advance.

[vinny]

Someone asks the "which camera" question here on a weekly basis. I suggest you read some past threads before you spend thousands of dollars.

[Mark Barendt]

There is a lot of info here http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ great place to start.

In general front movements help you control what is in focus by tilting or swinging the plane that the camera focuses on. This is easier seen than explained but see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheimpflug_principle

In general the rear movements change the geometry of what the film records. For example, regardless of the direction the camera is pointed, if the film/back is swung and tilted so that the film plane is parallel to the plane of the face of a building then the face of the building will look "square". These swings and tilts can be used creatively too to skew the shape of the subject too. Both are fun.

[Jim Jones]

While the information you seek is available online, sometimes a good book on the subject is better. It should provide the answers to questions you don't yet know to ask. Some books are A User's Guide to the View Camera by Jim Stone, The View Camera by Harvey Shaman, Using the View Camera by Steve Simmons, and View Camera Technique by Leslie Stroebel. The Stroebel book is the most detailed. You may want to check the publication date before buying these books. Earlier editions of some of these don't cover recent equipment and material, although I don't find this important. Ansel Adams books on photography were published over many decades, and are still popular. The most up-to-date information can be found online when one knows what to look for. View camera photography has evolved over a very long time, and knowledge of early equipment is mostly valid today.

[biedron]

A film MF back can generally be used quite effectively on a traditional view camera (though I don't know the specifics of the two cameras you mentioned). However the overwhelming consensus is that a MF digital back requires far more precise (finely geared) movements (especially focus) than are found on all all but a few extremely expensive view cameras. The two you mentioned are definitely not in that class. But film is way more satisfying anyway!

Bob

[Drew Bedo]

Kazzam:

There is a good bit of difference between LF and MF besides the format. Manipulating the gear before and after the exposure and dealing with the auxillery gear (and separate sheets of film) are a topics with separate threads on this board from time to time, while whole books have been written about exposure and development.

Before you jump right into the deep end of the LF pool, you might try out a relatively inexpensive pinhole camera or one of the Graphics to get the feel of the work-flow involved . . .and explore how you will move it around while doing the photography you like to do. You may find the lack of spontaneity to be suffocating your creative vision . . .or you may just not care for hauling it all around.

You may not like the way setting up a tripod and view camera draws women whose interest disturbs your inner vision . . .or that may be what you like most about LF!

In short: Take a dip first before the plunge.

Cheers


Cheers

[h2oman]

Here's what I would say, as one who's been doing LF for 4+ years after having only a 35mm slide and DSLR background:

1. People told me to start with a normal (150 or 135mm) length lens. That was good advice. I quickly followed that with a 90mm, because I was also a fan of near-far compositions (and David Meunch and Jack Dykinga). Since then I have pretty much totally abandoned that style of photography, and I tend to use my 240mm more than any other lens, with the 150mm a close second.

2. I started with a wooden Tachihara style field camera (Osaka brand). I found it difficult to work with because I would set a movement like forward tilt then, when I wanted to change it I would loosen the forward tilt knobs and the bellows would pull the standard back to neutral, so I would then have to guess where I was and where I needed to be. I later got a geared metal camera (Wista SP) and all my frustration went away. Perhaps the newer wooden cameras like the Chamonix and Shen Hao are easier to work with, and I have seen lots of great images made with Tachiharas ( and I made a few decent ones with mine). None of this may make sense to you without having ever used a view camera, but the upshot is that, for me, a metal camera was easier to work with than a wooden one.

3. I would plan on NOT knowing what you REALLY want until you have a bit of experience. I'd spend as little as possible on a simple basic setup and, while using it, read all you can. If I could do it again I think I'd start with something like a Crown Graphic and an inexpensive 150mm or 135mm lens. After a year or so you'll have a much better idea of what you really want. You will also perhaps discover that the photographer is far more important than the gear!

Good luck and have fun.

[Regular Rod]

Hi folks,

Looking for some general advice on what to choose for my first LF camera/lens. I shoot landscapes, closeups of things like leaves, tree barks (not true macro). I will also shoot the occasional architecture shot. I shoot 35mm typically at 21- 24mm. MF at 40mm. I'm a little confused by the stuff I'm reading and not really sure which lens/camera combo to choose.

I'm looking at a Walker xl with 72mm, or one of the shen hao PTB cameras. I know the Walker has a fixed rear standard and the shen hao has a movable. One is resin, the other is wood.

I would also at some point like to add a MF back or a digital back.

So my questions are...

Are these cameras good for me or should I be looking at something different. Lens combinations etc.

Do I need rear movement and what are the pros and cons of not having this feature on the camera. I like the near-far type of shot so this is important for me.

Is the 72 mm lens (it's a schneider super angalon 5.6 xl) the way to go?

Another question, focusing. I am not sure how all these movements work but this will be part of the learning process for me. I've read a few threads about lines, angles, etc and it kind of confuses me. I just want to know the easiest way to focus the camera. Is there a dummies guide to focussing that I can learn these techniques. I don't want to know deep physics. I just want to know how to focus and take nice pictures.

Really grateful for any advice.

Thanks in advance.

Most recommendations will be folk telling you to buy what they bought. It's human nature. By the 72mm I assume you are looking for 4x5 rather than LF. For 4x5 I use an MPP MkVII, my best friend uses a Shen Hao for 4x5. If I didn't already have the MPP I'd be buying a Shen Hao. It's all personal preference but there is no denying that you will find the Shen Hao to be well made and simple to set up. Have you considered a Travelwide ($99)? No movements but you will be getting 4x5 negatives and may find you use it more than you would a camera with movements...

RR

[Brian Ellis]

If the architecture that you do is exterior I wouldn't buy a camera with a fixed back. I used to do quite a lot of exterior architecture with 4x5 and 8x10 cameras and I found a back with movements (especially front tilt) critical in keeping parallel lines in the subject parallel in the photograph.

[Otto Seaman]

Brian, you should know by now that tilts and swings have nothing to do with keeping your subjects looking parallel in your photos unless you are using indirect movements to achieve greater rise/fall or shift. Tilts and swings are used to move the focus plane - rise/fall and shift is used to adjust the image.

But let's not overwhelm the OP.

The most friendly set-up for wide-angle 4x5 photography is likely to be one of the fixed, non-folding Ebony, Walker, or Shen-Hao (clone of Ebony) cameras with a faster, higher quality 72-75-90mm f/5.6 Schneider XL or Rodenstock Grandagon-N f/4.5 series lens. However these cameras have limited movements and capabilities for longer lenses... they're very nice but you're committed to working on the wide to normal end of the scale.

A more versatile platform, like a Sinar or Arca-Swiss monorail, allows you to "build" the camera to suit your needs, from ultra wide-angle to using the longest practical lenses. The Arcas are very expensive, the Sinars - used - are very plentiful and relatively inexpensive. There are other great brands to research as well, such as the very high quality Linhofs and more utilitarian Cambos and Toyos. However monorails will generally be heavier and require a heavier tripod system as well. But in terms of bang for the buck and professionalism, they are still the standard.

None of the cameras intended for film are going to have the precision necessary for a small medium format digital back, it is a matter of scale. Of course you can fudge and make it work, but most people end up with a dedicated medium format technical camera if they pursue this. Everything is very expensive and not for the faint of heart.

Not to fault the OP but a lot of people come into large format saying that they are used to wider small format work and they want light, compact cameras. That is all well and good but in terms of the wide lenses, they are going to be dimmer and harder to see on the ground glass, which will make learning how to manipulate the camera harder because you may not see what you're doing very readily. And in terms of the light, compact cameras... most of them are quite fiddlely and somewhat delicate/fragile or obtuse to even experienced photographers (how do I open this? is a common question). Not that I wouldn't kick one out of bed, but they may not be the idea starter camera.

Most serious large format photographers end up buying and swapping a few different types of cameras (and lenses) before settling down because there are so many variables. To get started, spending a modest amount on a classic, standard design allows you to get a good grounding in how to use the film and movements without having $$$$ invested in a system that you're too cautious to fool around with.

For example, a Sinar F2 with a bag bellows and a 90/4.5 Grandagon will allow you to do world class work with the same tools as the most famous architectural photographers (90mm being the most popular lens for 4x5 architecture by far). It will be heavier and bulkier but also the controls are large and easily manipulated - you can see what it is you're doing.

Or a classic 4x5 press camera like a Graflex Crown Graphic ~ $300-$500 used ~ is a bulletproof, nearly idiot-proof compact that is a good simple introduction.

Good Luck