Why not a rangefinder?

[Bob Salomon]

1. Shoot: People, singular building / objects (e.g. a boat abandoned in ice, abandoned house, etc. But mainly people. Not interested in trying to reproduced detailed pictures of nature or city scape.

2. I suspect normal and long. I doubt wide angle.

3. Probably both. But I doubt I will be doing much spontaneous shooting given the miss rate. I don't think handholding is a big deal to me. Happy to use a tripod for once.

4. No idea. I don't even know how that could be used. I have seen it used with people shots and the results have been interesting. So would like the option to experiment with it.

4: Scheimpflug allows you to control where the plane of focus is.
With a non adjustable lens camera the plane of sharp focus lies perpendicular to the film. So, if you were to take a picture of a picket fence that is positioned across the picture area, perpendicular to the film, it would be sharp at any aperture from left to right. What appears to be sharp in front and behind that fence depends on depth of field.

But if that fence runs diagonally across the field only the pickets at the point focused on would be critically sharp. By swinging the lens (or the back) you can make all of the fence sharp. Aperture would still control apparent sharpness in front and behind the fence.

Tilts and swings allow you to control where that plane of sharpness lies.

Rear one allow you to control image shape as well.

[Bernice Loui]

Now back to the original discussion..

Point being and point pressed Bob and based on your experience with a variety of imaging systems...

Print or image goals define the imaging system required..


Oh, end of discussion Bob as it has become pointless-absurd.
Bernice

The OP was asking about view cameras, not aerial cameras.
I sold and trained NASA astronauts on the Aero Technika 45 EL as well as the Rollei 6008 for the Space Shuttle. I’m well aware for the requirements for aerial as well as metric camera requirements.

Now, if you want to discuss how Jack Boucher and his associates did National Park Service HABS work with the Linhof Kardan cameras I was also involved with Jack, and Jet.
Or if you want to discuss landscape work by John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum and other landscape photographers with the Technikas, I was involved with them as well.

And perhaps you don’t know that my studio had 45, 57 and 810 Sinar Expert outfits as well as a Super Technika V outfit.

Or that in the early 70s I represented EPOI selling the Sinar P.

Since I have been involved in most formats from Minox sub min (I was stopped by the SPs at Groton for shooting the sub base with a Minox when I was 13 in 1954) through 810 view cameras and large Robertson process cameras, as well as 3 years as an aerial Rec Tech photographer in the USAF I probably have more experience then you with types of cameras.

BTW, I was also involved with Perkin Elmer in selling them lenses for the Optical Cat for the U2.

[Bernice Loui]

Roll film camera system meets these needs better than a sheet film camera.. Or a digital camera or similar imaging systems could fit better too.

Now, what about the print or finished image goals? Will they be reflected light on a sheet of _ or will the images be digitized?


Bernice

1. Shoot: People, singular building / objects (e.g. a boat abandoned in ice, abandoned house, etc. But mainly people. Not interested in trying to reproduced detailed pictures of nature or city scape.

2. I suspect normal and long. I doubt wide angle.

3. Probably both. But I doubt I will be doing much spontaneous shooting given the miss rate. I don't think handholding is a big deal to me. Happy to use a tripod for once.

4. No idea. I don't even know how that could be used. I have seen it used with people shots and the results have been interesting. So would like the option to experiment with it.

[Bobab]

Roll film camera system meets these needs better than a sheet film camera.. Or a digital camera or similar imaging systems could fit better too.

Now, what about the print or finished image goals? Will they be reflected light on a sheet of _ or will the images be digitized?


Bernice

It is starting to seem that way, though I have really liked some of the images produced by LF cameras, and I was keen not to build a MF systen (something like the Hasselblad much more costly than LF to put together, and so much less interesting).

In terms of finished product. Likely to be both. At the moment I have an enlarger for my 35mm. Was hoping to have some sort of smallish set up, possibly using the LF camera itself for MF and LF enlargements (is that possible, I read somewhere that this is what some people do, but wasn't too sure).

I am in the process of setting up a DSLR scanning rig. Which is a can of worms itself...

[Greg Y]

Until the way you want to use the camera becomes important.

Bob, There are many ways to skin a cat. The OP asked about rangefinders, photographing people (not landscapes or architecture), a 360mm lens, and a rollfilm back all in the first few sentences. That's a pretty big ask. I think Bernice has it right in a few posts this month, when she suggests starting the discussion from the output end... How are you going to print? Will you develop your own film? Much as Linhof Technikas are great versatile cameras, I wouldn't necessarily choose one for doing portraits. My friend & pro photographer Todd Korol used a Deardorff 8x10 for a killer portrait project on the grounds of the Calgary Stampede. I much admired Bradford Washburn for using a Fairchild aerial camera his outstanding big mountain landscapes. Me, I wasn't paying the $3500/hr for the Bell 212, so in my work I used Fuji 6x9 rangefinders and Pentax67....they were the acceptable compromise. Linhof makes great cameras, but IMO the Master Technika isn't the definitive answer to every LF question...

[Bob Salomon]

Bob, There are many ways to skin a cat. The OP asked about rangefinders, photographing people (not landscapes or architecture), a 360mm lens, and a rollfilm back all in the first few sentences. That's a pretty big ask. I think Bernice has it right in a few posts this month, when she suggests starting the discussion from the output end... How are you going to print? Will you develop your own film? Much as Linhof Technikas are great versatile cameras, I wouldn't necessarily choose one for doing portraits. My friend & pro photographer Todd Korol used a Deardorff 8x10 for a killer portrait project on the grounds of the Calgary Stampede. I much admired Bradford Washburn for using a Fairchild aerial camera his outstanding big mountain landscapes. Me, I wasn't paying the $3500/hr for the Bell 212, so in my work I used Fuji 6x9 rangefinders and Pentax67....they were the acceptable compromise. Linhof makes great cameras, but IMO the Master Technika isn't the definitive answer to every LF question...

Of course it isn’t. But he did specify rangefinder, people, roll film, etc.. all are well within the capabilities of the MT without needing to carry the bulk of a monorail and the extension rail needed for these requirements.but, unless he wants to shoot long roll 5” film, he probably would not want a 360 for 6x6 to 6x9 roll film people pictures.

[Bernice Loui]

It's all a set of trade-offs, partly goes back the the "Decisive Moment" or "Carefully crafted image from one's creativity". Current digital (C_phones included) or roll film cameras do well at Decisive Moment images due to the very nature of how they have been designed to be used to record images.
View cameras or similar sheet film or over-sized digital sensor based cameras and their related optics often do better at the Carefully crafted image from one's creativity due to the ability to control how the image is recorded and how the image projected by a given optic can be "adjusted" to the needs of the image to be produced from one's creativity. This is why knowing precisely what your image goals are is so very important. IMO, more important to get the image finishing end of the image creation process in order before the image recording end as it is often easier to acquire a given camera than set up a facility and means to make a print or create a digital data based image.

In you're specific case, the ideal camera system might be a medium format range finder like a Fuji GW/GL690 or Mamiya 7 or even a TLR like Rolleiflex.

Having owned and used Hasselblad for decades in the past, that system does not earn a recommendation, not a good cost -vs- performance -vs- value camera system IMO as there are better medium format camera systems available today.
Medium format film does have the ability to produce excellent film based images.

There is a semi view camera dabble between medium format and 4x5 to larger, 6x9 or 2"x3" view cameras which is a mixed-blend of roll film and sheet film. These miniature view cameras are a mixed in-between, but does not offer rangefinder focusing abilities unless something is specially made up for a specific lens set to camera.

The smallish set up for 4x5 would be to do contact prints bypassing the enlargement process. IMO, contact prints are best with film sizes of 8x10 and larger.

Suggest continue to do what you're doing keeping in mind all that has been discussed about images you're wanting to produce, rangefinder cameras, view cameras aka ground glass direct viewing cameras and never forget about what happens after the film is exposed or pixels recorded.



Bernice

It is starting to seem that way, though I have really liked some of the images produced by LF cameras, and I was keen not to build a MF systen (something like the Hasselblad much more costly than LF to put together, and so much less interesting).

In terms of finished product. Likely to be both. At the moment I have an enlarger for my 35mm. Was hoping to have some sort of smallish set up, possibly using the LF camera itself for MF and LF enlargements (is that possible, I read somewhere that this is what some people do, but wasn't too sure).

I am in the process of setting up a DSLR scanning rig. Which is a can of worms itself...

[LabRat]

I personally don't like the common RF units on press/technical cameras, as the focusing area spot is too small on the usual side mounted RF cameras... Even my Linhof Tek III RF is never used these days, as I'm not shooting really fast handheld LF press, weddings etc with it... Taking focus on the GG and using viewfinder takes a little longer, but no big deal for posed subjects... I am also used to using distance scales on press cameras, so am used to using them...

An old press trick for some old press cameras was to put a hole in the rear hood and mount a loupe there for critical focusing, then use the viewfinder to frame... I resisted doing this due to something else sticking out the back of the camera while transporting...

Steve K

[LabRat]

I personally don't like the common RF units on press/technical cameras, as the focusing area spot is too small on the usual side mounted RF cameras... Even my Linhof Tek III RF is never used these days, as I'm not shooting really fast handheld LF press, weddings etc with it... Taking focus on the GG and using viewfinder takes a little longer, but no big deal for posed subjects... I am also used to using distance scales on press cameras, so am used to using them...

An old press trick for some old press cameras was to put a hole in the rear hood and mount a loupe there for critical focusing, then use the viewfinder to frame... I resisted doing this due to something else sticking out the back of the camera while transporting...

Steve K

[Bob Salomon]

It's all a set of trade-offs, partly goes back the the "Decisive Moment" or "Carefully crafted image from one's creativity". Current digital (C_phones included) or roll film cameras do well at Decisive Moment images due to the very nature of how they have been designed to be used to record images.
View cameras or similar sheet film or over-sized digital sensor based cameras and their related optics often do better at the Carefully crafted image from one's creativity due to the ability to control how the image is recorded and how the image projected by a given optic can be "adjusted" to the needs of the image to be produced from one's creativity. This is why knowing precisely what your image goals are is so very important. IMO, more important to get the image finishing end of the image creation process in order before the image recording end as it is often easier to acquire a given camera than set up a facility and means to make a print or create a digital data based image.

In you're specific case, the ideal camera system might be a medium format range finder like a Fuji GW/GL690 or Mamiya 7 or even a TLR like Rolleiflex.

Having owned and used Hasselblad for decades in the past, that system does not earn a recommendation, not a good cost -vs- performance -vs- value camera system IMO as there are better medium format camera systems available today.
Medium format film does have the ability to produce excellent film based images.

There is a semi view camera dabble between medium format and 4x5 to larger, 6x9 or 2"x3" view cameras which is a mixed-blend of roll film and sheet film. These miniature view cameras are a mixed in-between, but does not offer rangefinder focusing abilities unless something is specially made up for a specific lens set to camera.

The smallish set up for 4x5 would be to do contact prints bypassing the enlargement process. IMO, contact prints are best with film sizes of 8x10 and larger.

Suggest continue to do what you're doing keeping in mind all that has been discussed about images you're wanting to produce, rangefinder cameras, view cameras aka ground glass direct viewing cameras and never forget about what happens after the film is exposed or pixels recorded.



Bernice

45 also does decisive moment and peak action. Look at Ty Cobb sliding spikes high into 3rd. Jackie Robinson stealing home, all kinds of ringside boxing matches, the Hindenburg explosion.

Knowing your camera and it’s capabilities is what is important!