Switching to 2X3 - Need Your Input

[Greg Liscio]

I have always found this group most helpful.

Now because of the cost of processing 4X5 color transparencies I am thinking of switching to 2X3.

I know there are downsides to this, but are there any upsides? I can use 120 film which should be easier to process, and for my purposes the transparency, while not as lush as a 4X5, will suit my purposes.

Is 2X3 harder to focus? More difficult from any other perspective?

Thanks all.
Greg

[W K Longcor]

MORE QUESTIONS NEED ANSWERS. Staying with the 4x5 camera with a roll back? Going to a 2x3 press camera with range finder - or a 2x3 view camera with only ground glass focus?
If going to a smaller press camera -- big up side is easy to carry. If the rf is adjusted - focus should be good. The lens boards on the 2x3 press cameras are a bit small -- limiting lens choice a bit. I've never used a 2x3 view camera-- but have done a lot with the 4x5 and a roll back -- you will not save anything in weight or carrying ease -- but should get excellent results. As far as focus -- using a magnifyer on the ground glass should give excellent results, no matter what camera.

[Jeff Keller]

There is a fairly nice reflex viewer for the Horseman VH/VHR cameras. It pretty much eliminates the need for a dark cloth. I've had good results using it to focus (I seldom used tilt). The lenses are generally lighter and smaller: shorter focal lengths, smaller shutters. Besides film being cheaper, more can be carried.
The VH/VHR "box" limits the use of wide angle lenses.
Jeff Keller

[GPS]

Go to the LF home page, find the 2x3 round-up article with answers to your question.

[gary mulder]

In general good quality 2x3 takes high quality camera's that tend to be more expensive than there 4x5 counterparts. You process a LOT of 4x5 slides for that money.

[cjbroadbent]

I had a Linhof Technika 2x3 for a bit, thinking to do product shots and such. I found the tiny camera movements too itsy-bitsy for my clumsy fingers and usually unnecessary at those focal lengths - apart from a little rise to clear the foreground.
When you take trouble with subject matter or take trouble climbing up the mountain, that flimsy strip of mylar mostly filled with useless bracketing does not seem a worthwhile result.
On the other hand, if you had a pair of roll-film chassis, you could shoot people, if you had an assistant to do the loading (to paraphrase JeromeKJerome). But then, with a Hasselblad you could see what you were doing.

[Sal Santamaura]

...that flimsy strip of mylar...

And it's probably not even mylar. Almost all 120 film is coated on triacetate base, which, when sitting on the reverse-curl feed roller of most backs, takes a "set," then bulges toward the lens when advanced to the gate. This wreaks havoc with the tight film-positioning tolerance required for shorter focal lengths.

I'm convinced that the Mamiya 7's resolution performance is as much a result of film positioning accuracy as of its sharp lenses.

[GPS]

And it's probably not even mylar. Almost all 120 film is coated on triacetate base, which, when sitting on the reverse-curl feed roller of most backs, takes a "set," then bulges toward the lens when advanced to the gate. This wreaks havoc with the tight film-positioning tolerance required for shorter focal lengths.

...

As if you had a better "film-positioning tolerance" for the same focal lengths on a sheet film holder...

[rugenius]

After my Rollei TLR froze up during sea-side shooting I decided to bite the bullet for 4x5 entry.
I miss the Planar lens.
I have outstanding enlargements using the 2.25 x 2.25 in format.
Thus 2 x 3 is easily a step up.
But I think many LF and ULF photographers are achieving incredible detail and minimal enlargement.
How you shoot and what you want in the end is up to you.
My favorite enlargement is from an antique MARS 6 x 9 cm camera.
Was in the backyard pulling the bellows out beyond normal use trying to get a macro shot of magnolias and azaleas.
Talk about zero depth of field...
I used very grainy Ilford sheet film, and at 10X magnification to final print.
Point is,... whatever turns you on...

So,... anyway,... I purchased a Chamonix 045N and two Horseman roll-film backs.
Formats 6 x 12 cm and 6 x 9 cm, effectively 2 x 4 in and 2 x 3 in.
Combined with other very light weight components this has provided a very effective field camera for me.
I use a custom photo back pack, lightweight Photo-clam ball head, CF Feisol traveler tripod, two lenses, magnifying loupe, light meter, dark-hood, and a single roll-film back depending on the situation.
The setup is extremely light and easy to set up.
That said, the roll film backs do add weight.
But the convenience of processing is great.

[GPS]

...
That said, the roll film backs do add weight.
...

Quite the contrary, rugenius. They save the weight! Just try to take 4 sheet film holders to take those 8 pictures you store on a roll of 120 film and you'll see... And that is just for one roll - now take the equivalent of 5-7 rolls (my average daily stock in the field) in sheet film holders and you'll remember why the roll film was invented...