Inexpensive 4x5 field cameras

[alan_b]

Nice location and execution, but I really don't understand the obsession with the idea of having to use a long shutter time when photographing water so it doesn't look at all like water flowing.

Yeah! And what's with this black & white nonsense that doesn't look at all like real life?! Sheesh - get it together people!

Back on topic...

I've looked at Wista 45, Toyo 45 and the Intrepid 3d-printed black edition. Both Wista and Toyo seem to retail used for about $300 used in good condition. The Intrepid 3d-printed black edition is over $400 new.

- What is your preference of the three models?

- Are there any 4x5 field cameras that sell for even less than these?

I've had a Toyo 45A for 25 years or so. I like it, it's simple. Limited movements are fine for (my) landscape work and across-the-street building documentary shots. Not the lightest, but pretty indestructible when folded. Bellows can be an issue, they wear out after a while and aren't interchangeable. I use lenses from 65mm (recessed board) to 210mm.

[_tf_]

Nice shot! But no center filter?

No, they are far too expensive for my kind of amateur photography, not least because I rarely resort to a wide angle lens, tending toward 180 most of the time. Also, they seem impossible to find for the older lenses, so that keeps the temptation a bay. (The silver lining, I'd be burning in edges on a print, so one less thing to do in the darkroom!)

Nice location and execution, but I really don't understand the obsession with the idea of having to use a long shutter time when photographing water so it doesn't look at all like water flowing.

Agreed, one of the great landscape cliches. I am trying to get my head (in a practical way, I know there are tables) around depth of focus when movements are involved, so took two shots here one at f32 and one at f45, this is the latter, the 4s exposure comes from that, and as far as the water is concerned does not work me either. The second sheet is yet to be developed. (This really should be a colour image, the colours were sublime, but I didn't bring any colour film, and probably won't get another day like this this year before the leaves come off.)

Great, a couple of questions. I've attached a screen capture of the Intrepid 4x5 Mark IV specs that show how much movement the camera allows. As I understand it, a bag bellows isn't available. How much of the camera's movement can be used with a 90mm lens? Are you using a recessed lens board?

The S-K SuperAngulon 90/f8 doesn't need a recessed board, mine is mounted in a standard, offset, Technika board (I am waiting for a recessed board for a 75mm lens, to see if it could be used with it at all). I will get back to you on the exact movements at infinity when I get a chance to get out with it next. The shot above I wasn't able to use the full range of the front drop, there was at least 10mm 'left' and if the lens was in a centered board, it would not have been enough (the camera was horizontal, for this kind of shot I could have, of course, angled it). The bellows material on the Intrepid is quite thick and as the video above said, waterproof. This I makes the movements more limited than e.g., on my Technika 23, but all in all, I prefer this kind of bellows material for this type of the camera, it am really not worried about it getting wet and dirty, etc. FWIW, bag bellows could be easily made at home, but the Intrepid wasn't designed for frequent bellows changes, so the screws for that are tiny, you would probably want to redesign that, maybe put in inserts for something like M3 screws that could be worked by hand -- for someone who wanted to tinker a bit with a camera without designing one from a scratch, this is a good platform, I think.

This is an example of recent shot that was not able to accomplish with the Intrepid, came back with Kardan GT,

Pine Roots by tthef, on Flickr

The best I could with the Intrepid there was this:

Pines II by tthef, on Flickr

[Bernice Loui]

These example images using a 90mm lens on the "low cost" Intrepid lightweight field folder are typical of images made using a lightweight field folder. This is also why lightweight field folders have limited camera movements, not easily interchanged bellows (bag and no limit on bellows added), limited camera extension and such as limiting the camera ability allows making the camera lightweight, low cost and related. One example of why and how image goals drive camera choice.

Folks first venturing into this view camera stuff will not be all that demanding on camera ability or lens as the view camera skills have not yet been developed enough to place extreme demands on camera, lens and all related.. Some will continue up the view camera image making curve which can greatly increase demands and expectations on camera, lens and all relate ability. Know this only happens if the view camera image maker persist on using a view camera for a great variety of images far beyond outdoor back packing "AA_Group f64" style images..

Previously posted, example of interior images that would place demands on any lightweight field folder's ability as these images made using a 5x7 Sinar Norma using a 72mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL demand front and rear camera standards combined with a bag bellows to extract all possible performance ability of the 72mm SAXL to create these images. This also places specific demands and skills from the image maker to achieve images like this.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-aperture-used

Fact is, if one were to create outdoor images that do not need extended camera capabilities and limited lens choices, the light weight field folder could be the ideal choice in every way. Once greater demands are forced upon the camera, that light weight field folder often cannot meet the demands and needs of what is required to achieve the image goals.

~The view camera remains to this day as one of the most capable photographic instruments to this regardless of it's innate, inherent superficial simplicity.~


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

For WA work exclusively, or up to "normal" focal lengths, non-folding wooden field cameras can be even lighter, and faster to operate, and more rigid. Ebony and Chamonix made some nice ones; but it's a much easier design to replicate than a classic folder. Not of much interest to me personally, however, since I gravitate more toward longer focal lengths.

[Dugan]

Ben,
If price is your number 1 consideration, get a Burke & James 4x5 Press Camera.
Take all the rangefinder doodads off.
It's self-casing, small, the ground glass is protected by a folding hood, it has a revolving back, it takes standard 4x4" lens boards, it has front standard tilt & shift.
A 135mm (or 90mm in a recessed board) Wollensak lens in a CLA'd Alphax or Rapax shutter will get the job done, and fit inside the camera when closed up.

[Bernice Loui]

Not that "low cost".. IMO, the days of bargain view camera and lenses and related have passed.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/15230/i.htm...c&LH_PrefLoc=2

If a beater B&J 4x5 press camera cost $200. What is the cost to fix up? New bellows, lens shutter likely needs work, camera needs clean-lube and such.
Once the beater camera/lens is made usable, what is this cost compared to a know GOOD camera, lens and all related to have a fully functional view camera that does not cause frustration and produce more resources and monetary cost waste. Short term bargain, longer term might not be such a bargain. And it is a press camera which adds to the limitations of what this camera is capable of. Know 4x5 press cameras as a group are designed to be used hand held with "zone focus 130_ish mm focal length lens"..


Bernice

Ben,
If price is your number 1 consideration, get a Burke & James 4x5 Press Camera.
Take all the rangefinder doodads off.
It's self-casing, small, the ground glass is protected by a folding hood, it has a revolving back, it takes standard 4x4" lens boards, it has front standard tilt & shift.
A 135mm (or 90mm in a recessed board) Wollensak lens in a CLA'd Alphax or Rapax shutter will get the job done, and fit inside the camera when closed up.

[Dugan]

Oops, my bad.
I guess the days of a $75 - $100 usable B&J 4x5 Press body have gone the way of $3/gal. gasoline.

[_tf_]

Fact is, if one were to create outdoor images that do not need extended camera capabilities and limited lens choices, the light weight field folder could be the ideal choice in every way. Once greater demands are forced upon the camera, that light weight field folder often cannot meet the demands and needs of what is required to achieve the image goals.

I don’t think anybody is disputing this. But the light weight folder also expands where 4x5 figures on the ‘largest camera I can carry’ scale, for me the Intrepid offers a viable alternative to my GS-1 or even ETRSi, and its movements range is infinitely greater than either.

(I also think some credit is due to companies like Intrepid for opening a way into this type of photography that reduces the amount of money one has to spend on equipment manufactured before one (or even one’s parents) was born, that there are no spare parts for and the people trained to service it are few and far apart. This creates a glimmer of hope that maybe down the road out the current generation of ‘folks first venturing into this view camera stuff’ might emerge some to again start making the bits without which this view camera stuff can’t happen and which are increasingly difficult to get at even moderately affordable prices. I am no youngster but most of my view camera equipment is older than me, and the younger me could have afforded none of it.)

[Havoc]

I also think some credit is due to companies like Intrepid for opening a way into this type of photography that reduces the amount of money one has to spend on equipment manufactured before one (or even one’s parents) was born, that there are no spare parts for and the people trained to service it are few and far apart. This creates a glimmer of hope that maybe down the road out the current generation of ‘folks first venturing into this view camera stuff’ might emerge some to again start making the bits without which this view camera stuff can’t happen and which are increasingly difficult to get at even moderately affordable prices. I am no youngster but most of my view camera equipment is older than me, and the younger me could have afforded none of it.

I agree with you. But while cameras are relatively simple, shutters are likely going to an issue. They wear out and making new ones isn't as easy as making a new camera.

[r.e.]

Previously posted, example of interior images that would place demands on any lightweight field folder's ability as these images made using a 5x7 Sinar Norma using a 72mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL demand front and rear camera standards combined with a bag bellows to extract all possible performance ability of the 72mm SAXL to create these images. This also places specific demands and skills from the image maker to achieve images like this.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-aperture-used

That's a very interesting thread.