6x9 technical camera

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Brandan, if you can do without the digital update I think there's still a 2x3 Cambo SC on ebay.co.uk that will fit inside your budget. 2x3 SFs typically cost more than you want to spend.

[Brandan]

I found this set in a very reputed dealer. The kit seems very well preserved.

Plaubel Peco Junior 4x5

"Beautiful set with Tessar 4.5/16.5cm no.618118 in Compur shutter, Xenar 3.5/13.5cm no.1777139 on Plaubel lens board, black Plaubel 6x9cm rollfilm holder in box (cond.B), chrome Plaubel 6x9cm rollfilm holder in box (cond.C), chrome Plaubel 6x9cm rollfilm holder in box (cond.D) and chrome Plaubel 6x9cm rollfilm holder in box (cond.D)"

He is asking 490 euros for the kit. (659 USD)

In this link the pictured camera has a graflok back, but you can get an idea.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34306759@N00/385476674

As I could read in the camera manual, these are the specs:

Monorail with rise/fall and shift on the front, and swing, tilt on the rear.

Tilt 35º
Swing:65º
Max extension: 220mm
Min extension: 60mm

Lens-panel movements:
Rise: 55mm
Fall: 28mm
Cross (right): 45mm
Cross (left): 45mm

Weight of the camera 1460 grs with lens panel (this is for a 6x9, for a 4x5 estimate around 2000grs)

¿What do you think?

[Brandan]

Um, Brandan, if you can do without the digital update I think there's still a 2x3 Cambo SC on ebay.co.uk that will fit inside your budget. 2x3 SFs typically cost more than you want to spend.

Dan thank you very much. I will do some research about this camera. But it seems the right choice.
Thanks a lot!!!!

[Dan Fromm]

Brandan, the Peco Jr you're looking at is, like the Cambo SC, not precise enough to be used with a digital back. It is a 4x5, not a 2x3. There are also 2x3 Peco Juniors, see http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/plaubel_1.html . Plaubel cameras don't have Graflok backs, they have Plaubel backs that accept RADA roll holders. See http://www.cameraeccentric.com/html/info/plaubel_2.html . Plaubel backs aren't compatible with anything else.

The link you posted doesn't show the back of the camera as clearly as I'd like, but the roll holder on it appears to be a RADA and the text you quoted says Rada several times. If you want to shoot 2x3 on the relatively cheap, yeah, sure, it will do, but if you ever want to add a digital back an old Plaubel is a waste of money.

If you want to shoot 2x3 on the relatively cheap, there are other 4x5 monorail cameras that are compatible with standard backs and that can be got for less money than that Plaubel. Think Sinar, with which I'm not familiar, and Cambo, with which I am. 2x3 monorails are scarce and almost always more expensive than their 4x5 counterparts. Bits for 2x3 monorails are also more expensive than bits for 4x5ers.

Calm down and don't spend a centavo until you've educated yourself better.

[Drew Wiley]

A "technical camera" implies is can be used with sportfinder or rangefinder focus and not just groundglass. There are compromises to thing kind of design. The premier cameras would be the
Technika (Super and later). But if you're working from slightly wide to slightly longer than "normal"
the Horsemand FA is a lovely machine, and they're turning up at very good prices at the moment.
Just be aware when you need dedicated rollfilm backs rather than something generic. The nice thing
about the FA is that you can use it as a conventional 4x5 sheet film camera as well. The Technika will
give you greater bellows range, but at higher price and a bit of weight penalty. There are also some
older Wista technical cameras out there, and of course, the old Speed Graphics.

[Brandan]

Dan, thanks you are very helpful. I know there are Plaubel JR in 6x9 and in 4x5. The one I posted is certanly a 4x5. I knew that. By the way Glenn View says that a Plaubel Peco Jr is a good candidate for a digital back
You are right about costs in 6x9 monorails. That's why I am also considering a Sinar norma.
But I doubt when I think that maybe I will never use a 4x5 neg.
I can always buy a 4x5 and use part of the equipment.
You are also right that I have to educate myself better. That sure will happen when I can handle a monorrail camera myself.

Thanks for sharing knowledge!!!!!!!!
Brandan

[Dan Fromm]

Brandan, nearly everyone who has a 2x3 view camera to sell claims that it is a good candidate for a digital back. Here's another: http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-CAMBO-S...-/121059162871 The seller is a notorious liar.

I have a 2x3 Cambo. Two and a half, in fact. They're not good for digital backs because they lack fine focus; they don't even have geared focusing or movements.

As for Glenn Evan's pretty little 2x3 Peco Junior, it has a Plaubel back. Until proven otherwise, there are no adapters for mounting a digital back on any size of Peco. It has geared focus, true, but only coarse. The movements aren't geared.

If you want a 2x3 view camera that can use digital backs, get a Linhof Techno, M679, or Technikardan or a Cambo Ultima or SF. I'm not sure whether the small digital Sinars will accept roll holders (don't see why not but I don't know for sure) but people whom I respect highly insist that they're the best for digital. There is no inexpensive way to shoot digital with a view camera.

[Drew Wiley]

Focus gets pretty fussy with rollfilm backs, and even worse with digital, simply because the viewing
area and capture surface get smaller and smaller. Many older view cameras simply weren't made for this level of precision. The new monorail cameras dedicated for such use have finer gearing and are
typically damned expensive, as are digital backs themselves. When it comes to rollfilm holders you've
got similar issues. Not all of them were particularly precise. Some were horrible in terms of film plane
accuracy. And some are heavy. So you need to do a little research in this respect too. But any Norma
or Sinar F in good shape should work fine with a decent 6x9 back. As I noted already, I've found the
Horseman holders to be precise and quite portable; but you'd need the kind with the 4x5 plate, not the
dedicated 6x9 camera type, unless you have a 6x9 Horseman camera per se.

[Brandan]

Thanks Dan & Drew
You are showing lots of patience here. I will ask you one more thing:
If we forget about digital upgrading do you find 2x3 format useable?
Or yes or yes 4x5 with a roll film holder is a better option?

Best.
Brandan

[Dan Fromm]

I shoot 2x3 with 2x3 Graphics (Century and Pacemaker Speed) and with my 2x3 Cambo. I have no regrets about getting and using the Graphics. I'm accumulating the pieces to shoot 6x12 with a hybrid (2x3 front, 4x5 rear) Cambo. I feel like an idiot for making a hybrid, using a 4x5 Cambo (or other 4x5 monorail) for 6x12 would have been less expensive.

Whether a 4x5 view camera with a 2x3 roll holder is a better idea than a 2x3 View camera depends on prices. My first 2x3 Cambo was a gift. Complete outfit: standards, rail, tripod mounting block, pleated and bag bellows, boards. I recently bought a nearly complete 2x3 Cambo (standards, board, pleated bellows, no rail or tripod mounting block) for very little. The parts will be useful.

I've been very happy with my little Graphics, have taken little advantage of things my Cambo (now Cambos) can do and they can't. You can read about the crazy things I've done with my Graphics at http://www.galerie-photo.com/telecha...2011-03-29.pdf . Understand that Graphics are not view cameras, have no movements to speak of and are not for everyone.