Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: is a lighter 8x10 better than a heavy one

  1. #41
    indecent exposure cosmicexplosion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    664

    Re: is a lighter 8x10 better than a heavy one

    I noticed that peter Dombrovskis, the famous tasmanian wilderness photographer used a 4x5 master linhof and 3 lenses and a polarising filter, and got him self into international hall of fame.

    i grew up in tasmania, so his images where on all the calendars and we had posters in my house of the franklin river and mossy sub tropical rain forests, so i am thinking that a camera like that would solve alot of issues, when climbing in the bush and mountain.

    My main photography goal will be not far from the car sort of thing, but now i have the power the itch has come over me to get up and shoot. yesterday i bought a 2d from this forum, for wet plate just to get the old look going when doing portraits. it was only 500 so it will tied me over in the field till i am full decided on other outfit.(s) it should go well with the 300mm f 3.5 soft focus i also bought off this forum the other day.

    I thought about the sliding box idea for wetplate, seems easy enough, just two boxes, and a back.

    shooting out the back of a van would be a good wind break, though a bit harder to hike with.

    i am also in process of payin off an aero ektar 12" so that should cut down exposure time. I got that because i wanted to eventually get a paramotor and do 8x10 up in the air, but again a 6x12 or 6x17 might give an easier ride, and a panoramic might look better from up there. Paramotors can be built for about 7k and could get you shots impossible on foot. Any way, these are the goals i am working towards. whish me luck!
    through a glass darkly...

  2. #42

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    193

    Re: is a lighter 8x10 better than a heavy one

    Light and rigid beats heavy and not

    I am happy to have a light rigid camera (of which there are some) but don't like to skimp too much on the tripod. Ultralight CF tripods can be very light and rigid, but with a super light camera on top, the whole set up can be an issue in even light winds or, for example, on grass, when the whole set up lacks the mass to flatten the grass and bite into the earth and so its all on a spring so to speak. My Berleback with foot spikes helps in this regard. Tripods with nice flat or round fat feet can make it hard to get real stability no matter what is sitting on top, if the ground is not perfectly solid.

    My old Zone VI ultralight had some flex in it, but if the wind was enough to induce this flex then the wind was far too strong for photos just due to the effect of buffeting. Still, light as it was, I did not like the insubstantial feel it had. The Chamonix 8x10 I have on order is lighter still, but I hope feels more solid.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: is a lighter 8x10 better than a heavy one

    It's a trade-off. The question reminds me of the lightest gun question. Sure, you can have a .458 Lott that weighs 7 lbs. You just won't enjoy shooting it, if you can shoot it at all. You'll get beat up, develop a massive flinch, and while the cape buffalo you just wounded stomps you into a damp spot on the veldt, you'll be thinking " Damn, I wish I'd listened to that old fart and used the 9 lb .375 H&H that I can actually hit things with; that nice light gun was such a pleasure to carry...".
    One man's Mede is another man's Persian.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    193

    Re: is a lighter 8x10 better than a heavy one

    I think you need your shutters servicing if they go off like a .458!

    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    It's a trade-off. The question reminds me of the lightest gun question. Sure, you can have a .458 Lott that weighs 7 lbs. You just won't enjoy shooting it, if you can shoot it at all. You'll get beat up, develop a massive flinch, and while the cape buffalo you just wounded stomps you into a damp spot on the veldt, you'll be thinking " Damn, I wish I'd listened to that old fart and used the 9 lb .375 H&H that I can actually hit things with; that nice light gun was such a pleasure to carry...".

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    469

    Re: is a lighter 8x10 better than a heavy one

    I suppose I shouldn't stick my oar in here, BUT---I have a Rochester View #2 in 8X10 with a Gundlach triplex (12-15-21 inch) and packard shutter. I use an Agfa/Ansco tripod with this device. It's a light camera with a light lens and light shutter. But I carry 2 sheet film holders. I also found that steadying The lens and film box ends of the camera with my forearms or hands help tame vibrations. If it turns out breezy up in the Adarondaks, I switch to a 4X5 B&J Press.

Similar Threads

  1. Gandolfi 8x10 Precision / Traditional (Picture heavy, questions)
    By Math in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2-Feb-2011, 03:09
  2. Looking for a LIGHTER tripod
    By Stephen S. Mack in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 16-May-2008, 12:41
  3. Heavy 8x10 - best tripod and shutter value?
    By Frank Petronio in forum Gear
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 20-May-2005, 04:36
  4. A steady 8x10 camera for long and heavy lenses?
    By Jerome Wu in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 15-Apr-2005, 03:32

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •