Roll Film Holder Experts?

[John Cook]

I was just looking at 4x5 120 6x9cm roll film holders over on the B&H website.

The Arca Swiss #611012 and the Horseman #47022451 appear to be identical. The photograph of the Arca Swiss unit even has the Horseman brand name embossed on it.

Although there is $100 difference in price, are these in fact the same holders? Or do you suppose B&H got their product illustrations mixed up?

Also, has anyone had any experience with these? I used Linhof units in the old days until they got to be so costly. The Calumet unit owned by a friend in the 1970's seemed rather cheesy. Any thoughts about the Sinar or Toyo units?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Used Linhof Super-Rollex holders of the latest design usually go for around $300-400, if you don't mind purchasing second-hand.

[Ted Harris]

John,



I used to use Super Rolex holders years ago and have used the Horseman holders for the past decade. The Horseman holders are well made, tight units. No problems with registration, flatness or framing. I like the advance handles better on the Linhof holders and like the size and weight of the Horsemans better. Also the price. Bottom line they work fine. On firther point there is a slight size difference between the Horseman and the Super Rolex, I mean the size of the negative. Bob Salomon can give the specifics I just remember this from past discussions.

[Bart Langenaken]

John,

If interested I sell a RFH Sinar 6x9. Technical/mechanical perfectly OK. The outside has some traces because a polaroidsheet with chemistry fell on it. I can send some pictures if interested.

Bart

[Jean-Louis Llech]

John,
obviously, both holders are the same ones.
I verified it on both catalogs, because, for example, Polaroid 405 holders for Arca-Swiss cameras are special ones.
But here, that's not the problem.
The $85.55 difference between both holders is probably caused by the different custom duties and taxes between a japanese and a swiss product.



Robert White sells both roll-film holders at the same price : 215 £ ($385)

[John Cook]

Thank-you, kindly. Exactly what I needed to know. The Arca-Swiss model has been on a nice $100 ocean cruise.

I am agonizing between a roll-film adapter and those sheet film paper envelope thingies whilst travelling. Hate to give up sheet film. But a 500% surcharge just for packaging does give one pause.

Then again, I suppose I should be thankful I still have a choice.

[Ted Harris]

John,



Don't you mean a 50% surcharge for packaging re the Quickload/Readyload sheets?



Personally I think it is a price well worth paying when you count the advantages in terms of a) space saving b) weight saving c) virtual total elimination of dust.



I routinely carry a field camera (used to be a Horseman FA now an Ebony RW45), Pentax Digital Spotmeter, Loupe, Cable Release, 3 lenses (usually 75 5.6 SA/110 SS XL/240 Fuji A) 20 sheets of Quickloads, Quickload Holder in a small over-the-shoulder haversack. Total weight is well under 10 pounds. No way to do that with holders and, to me, the RFH is not worth the effort when I can carry this setup.

[Jonathan Brewer]

I got the Toyo RFH for the AII and kept it but a short while before getting rid of it, it was impossible getting this thing in and out of the camera without slightly moving the camera position, and every time you wanted to check focus this is what you had to do.

I sold the holder and I suggest you consider what I got in its place which was a sliding roll film holder, way bigger than the RFH, harder to put on and off, but once you have it on, MUCH easier to operate, you probably already know this, but the sliding adaptor has a place for a rollfilm holder, and a groundglass, and you slide over between the holder and the groundlass for focusing.

They show up used on e-bay for way less than what they sell for new.

[Glenn Kroeger]

The problem with sliding RF backs (and they are really quick and easy) is that invariably increase the minimum lens flange to film plane distance, making short focal length lenses (which you need more of with RF) harder to use.

I ended up selling my RFHs and travelling with Quickloads. If you use more than one emulsion, the cost of two RFH will cover the surcharge of quite a few boxes of film, plus you don't give up the cropability (sp?) of sheet film.

[Jonathan Brewer]

At what focal length would this be a problem?