Best MF Film Camera for LF Landscape Photographer?

[Roger Hesketh]

If you only need front movements I would recommend a Sanderson Hand and Stand camera with a roll film back. It has all the front movements you will ever need it is light. It's no heavier than a DSLR and not much bigger. You can put any lens you like on it. Their are quite a lot of them about. You can get a really nice one for a couple of hundred quid. You can use it like a press camera in the hand or you can put it on a tripod. I have never seen it done but I do not see any reason why you could not fit a Kalart rangefinder to one if you should so wish. This may seem like an odd suggestion but this camera was designed to just the job that you say you want to do. They may be old but they work just as well as they ever did.

[brianam]

maybe I'd be oversimplifying the OP's question, but wanting a "faster than LF camera to setup" *with* tilt-shift controls seems to be at odds to me... if you have time to get a camera on a tripod, focused, and T/S controls dialed-in, it only takes a *little* longer to get an LF setup. Right?

Agree with ROL who mentioned carrying Mamiya 7II. I've been quite happy carrying an M7II and LF in the same bag. M7 gets the quick shot, 5x7 comes out second--when the light isn't moving too fast.
Don't choose one system over another, just carry both.

[John Rodriguez]

maybe I'd be oversimplifying the OP's question, but wanting a "faster than LF camera to setup" *with* tilt-shift controls seems to be at odds to me... if you have time to get a camera on a tripod, focused, and T/S controls dialed-in, it only takes a *little* longer to get an LF setup. Right?

Not really. Using a 5D with a tilt/shift was much faster then 4x5, and that was before live view. Even adding in the time to use a dedicated spot meter it would still be a lot faster.

All that matters is what will get me the print I want. "IF" I can speed up the process considerably but still get 30x24 images I'm really happy with then it's a no brainer. Especially if it gives me a wider array of film options and lower film/developing/scanning costs as well. Ah, if only an IQ180 was the price of a D800

[Noeyedear]

Ok I know you will not be getting tilt shift, but I think 612 is a good choice. I had a Linhof 612 and two lenses, I sold them some time ago and I now wish I had not. There is rise built in or drop if you turn it upside down. Superbly well made and now a good range of lenses. I've never had anything Linhof which does not deliver what you expect. In fact I'm waiting for the courier today to bring me my 5x7 Technika bougth on Ebay.
Of course there are the MF Linhof Technikas that have all the movements as well. I had one of them a few years back, paid £50. for it with a range of lenses and cams sold it for £450. within a week. First one I had ever seen, £50. sounded worth a go, I was right.
Kevin.

[Noeyedear]

I use a TS on a Canon handheld, I have to I'm in a helicopter. I drop the the lens about 8mm (24mm mkII) then shoot when the buildings and horizon look right. I've never done a side by side test, I do suspect it's quicker than using a LF :-)

maybe I'd be oversimplifying the OP's question, but wanting a "faster than LF camera to setup" *with* tilt-shift controls seems to be at odds to me... if you have time to get a camera on a tripod, focused, and T/S controls dialed-in, it only takes a *little* longer to get an LF setup. Right?

Agree with ROL who mentioned carrying Mamiya 7II. I've been quite happy carrying an M7II and LF in the same bag. M7 gets the quick shot, 5x7 comes out second--when the light isn't moving too fast.
Don't choose one system over another, just carry both.

[Drew Bedo]

I started shooting DSLRs 8 years ago. After being bummed out on the lack of resolution on larger prints and not being able to create the near/far tilt shots I'd seen over the years I switched to a Canon full frame body to use their tilt shift lenses. Shortly after that I tried 4x5 and have been with it since.

Eight years is a loooong time in digital years. And the current crop of High-Pixel DSLRs is out of contention? Both Canon and Nikon have bodies with over 20 MP full size sensors and tilt-shift lenses. The option for multishot stitching is also much easier now as well.

If leaving LF truely serves your creative vision and process, the current DSLR world is worth another look.

cheers

[rdenney]

For me, the problem with the Canon tilt-shift solution is the sheer cost. For a high-production commercial model, it would be sensible. But I make few images, and even fewer that need big prints. The Canon solution requires a $3000 body, a $2500 17mm TSE lens, a $2100 24mm TSE lens, at $1200 TSE lenses at 45 and 90mm, to provide a reasonably comprehensive capability for movements. That adds up to a cool ten grand--at least five times what a very nice and complete 4x5 solution with the same equivalent lenses might cost these days. If I delivered 1000 images a year for which I was paid, that capital cost would only be a few dollars per paying image. That would be no problem to justify. But if I make only 10 images a year, those costs become enormous.

And even with that setup, there is a limit to how big the prints can be with respect to 4x5. I suspect very few commercial situations require prints that large, at least these days.

Sure, folks will say that the scanner adds to the cost of the large-format solution, but it doesn't for me. I have a lifetime of old stuff that I still mine. Again, that may not be the commercial model.

I do have a Canon 5D with a 24mm TSE (Mark I, half the price of the Mark II). It does pretty well, and I have used it many times hand-held and it does allow working very fast at times. But that lens cannot deliver what my 65 or 90mm Super Angulons can do without even breathing hard, even without considering the differences in camera bodies, film, and formats. When the Mark II and the 17mm lenses came out, I had to consider my options, and that's when I returned to large format with much more commitment. I just cannot maintain a quality model with digital stuff any more--it has outpriced me.

Rick "who misses movements when they are not there" Denney

[John Rodriguez]

I started shooting DSLRs 8 years ago. After being bummed out on the lack of resolution on larger prints and not being able to create the near/far tilt shots I'd seen over the years I switched to a Canon full frame body to use their tilt shift lenses. Shortly after that I tried 4x5 and have been with it since.

Eight years is a loooong time in digital years. And the current crop of High-Pixel DSLRs is out of contention? Both Canon and Nikon have bodies with over 20 MP full size sensors and tilt-shift lenses. The option for multishot stitching is also much easier now as well.

If leaving LF truely serves your creative vision and process, the current DSLR world is worth another look.

cheers

Interestingly I ran another DSLR print test last night with two photos taken with a recently new-to-me D700 and an 85mm f/2 AIS. Both shots were taken off a tripod at base ISO using mirror lock-up and live-view to confirm focus. One shot was of a distant partially snow covered peak and clouds basking in alpenglow. The other was of some plants and rocks about 6 feet from the camera. Files we're worked on but only had very light selective sharpening to avoid any artifacts and printed at 21" on the long edge.

The print from the 6 foot away image of the plants/rocks looked great. Getting nose close to the print didn't reveal any issues. I could probably print this even a little bit bigger, I'll be doing some cropped test prints on letter size paper to see.

The print of the far-away mountain peak however showed a weakness I've always run into with digital: some far away objects that don't resolve 100% tend to get blotchy looking. I always make sure those objects don't get sharpened, but there's just something about the sensor that gives these objects a weird geometrical blotchy shape, and it really only appears on rock formations. Overall the print was OK, but I wouldn't go any bigger with it without finding a solution. Perhaps using a grain simulator, as film tends to perform much more gracefully in similar situations.

Still, it may be worth renting a D800 and 24/45 TSE for a weekend to get an idea of how they'll perform. The upside of a DSLR is it's possible to fit in the same bag with a 4x5, so I wouldn't necessarily need to give up the latter.

[Jeff Keller]

If you use a Canon camera you should also consider the Olympus OM 24mm f3.5 shift lens which can be mounted using a simple adapter. It doesn't have tilt but is reported to be sharper than the Canon lens. I'm very happy with the Olympus lens but I haven't used a Canon 24 TSE lens to make a direct comparison.

The Canon 17mm TSE is a great lens but it doesn't seem as sharp as a Nikon 14-24 or Olypus 24mm shift lens. I use all of these. I depend upon a tripod and live view to get accurate focusing ... so faster than a view camera but not DSLR point and shoot fast. Also exposure with a shift lens isn't accurate using the DSLR meter while the lens is shifted.

Jeff Keller

(thanks to those commenting on the Fuji 680. I revisited it trying to remember why I lost interest in it a year or two ago ... I think it was the somewhat limited wide angle range.)

[Jim Andrada]

Just thought I'd add that the big SLR's like the Mamiya RZ or RB are not ideal as hand held cameras. They weigh a ton - my RB is heavier than my Super Graphic I think - feels like it anyhow. (2 tons with the 500mm non-mirror lens on it!)

And mirror slap is an issue as well. I do use the RB's handheld occasionally but it's a lot of exercise. More often I use it on a monopod and it's really best on a tripod so you can use the mirror lock up and let things settle for a few seconds before tripping the shutter.

I absolutely love the cameras but for quick handheld work I prefer the Super Graphic with a grafmatic holder - and a monopod attached.