Monorail of Field - sharpness is the issue here

[Bob Salomon]

" And for the lens the Rodenstock Apo Sironar N is a little bit sharper then the S version"

Afraid you have your facts backwards

The S is the superior version

[Bob Salomon]

Sorry Armin but I question your testing.

How many of each lens?

What conditions? What image ranges?

The S will win 9+ times out of 10

[Doug Paramore]

Brian Ellis brought up one really important part of LF sharpness: The use of a good tripod. Get one twice as sturdy and heavy as you think you need. As for sharpness, any modern, well designed camera coupled with the Sironar lens will produce excellent sharpness. My preference for the shooting conditions you describe would be for a field or technical camera. You also need a good loupe. One other point... once you start using a LF camera, you may find that you will use the swings and tilts more than you think at this point. Good luck with your quest.

Regards,

[David E. Rose]

A Crown Graphic would be perfect for the work you describe. The main limitation of the Crown is a non-rotating back, but if you want only horizontal format images, it's perfect. It also has the advantage of being cheap, so you won't loose to much if you decide LF doesn't work for you, or if you want to try a different camera once you get a feel for things LF. Put your money into the lens.

[J.T.]

Armin, Just so you know, Schneider is no longer making Vacuum back. They had too many problems with the material it was made from with static electricity.

[M.]

I agree about the Crown Graphic. I also agree that you're not gonna notice any improvement from the 6x7 on a tripod until you get to 8x10 contact prints.

[Bruce M. Herman]

Marcus,

If you live near a gallery that has Robert Glenn Ketchum's photographs, you could see some very sizable enlargements of images made with a Pentax 6x7. I haven't heard anyone complain about his technique.

One significant advantage the 6x7 as over the 4x5 is ease of setup. I know of at least one professional who moved up to 4x5 for landscape photography and then moved back when he saw how frequently he lost the light before he could trip the shutter.

Having said all of that, I moved from 35 directly to 4x5 and will stay where I am because I make extensive use of tilt and rise/fall. I think that once you move to 4x5, you may find your horizons expand if you explore the movements that are available.

Bruce

[Bob Salomon]

Armin, The S has measurably and visably better performance, less distortion, better color, better range of optimal apertures, etc.

The problem is how did you test them?

I haven't seen your answer.

And it is possible that you found a truly superior N. But I still question the test first.

[Marcus Leonard]

To everyone who wrote an answer to my question:

Thank you all very much, it is really wonderful to find so many responses, after just one day!

The reason for calling a 67 to 45 move an upgrade is that I really want to make large (color) prints, 30X40 (inches) or larger. With my 67 I shoot in a very slow way, always using a tripod, being economic with film. In fact, in that respect I seem to use my 67 as a mini 45. So the philosophy, also my attention for the image composition, seems to me not that different, I did consider this issue. The point about the lesser degree of film leveling in a LF is well taken. However, the tripling of the number of grains is the decisive factor, provided optics and mechanics will not negate this benefit. Film holding will to some degree, I worried about the mechanics and wondered about mono versus field. Your answers seem to tell me not to worry about that issue. Right?

[Ellis Vener]

I've had no problem having 40"x40" prints made from 6cm x 6cm Hasselblad camera/Zeiss lenses) negatives and transparencies, or 24"x 30" prints made from 6x7cm film (Pentax 67 bodies and lenses. Detail is rendered with extraordinary crispness with architectural subjects. I am using mirror lockup w/ cable releases, a good tripod (gitzo 410) and Arca-Swiss B1 and B2 Monoball heads.

whether you decide to go with a monorail or a folding field camera design is sort of a personal preference. A high quality monorail camera -- Arca-Swiss F series, Linhof Technikardan TK45s, a Sinar P, C or X series --is every bit as stable and possibly quite possibly even more stable and as "solid" for field work as any field camera , and while they have thhey have the benefit of more extensive movements, they are also much bulkier (except in the case of the TK45s or the Arca FC cameras).

Bluntly: while right now you are insisting that you don't have any need for movements, but my guess is that as soon as you get a camera that has movements you'll start using them, especially vertical & horizontal shift, if for no other reason than the greater control you'll be able to exercise over your composition. Rear swing and tilt will offer you a great deal of perspective rendering control that a rigid bodied SLR cannot.

You should also consider where the nature of custom printing is technologically heading, and that is towards the universalization of some sort of digital intermediate step for large print making. Labs that can produce a better print directly from a piece of film than they can from a scanned piece of film (with the print generated either directly from the scan or (ala' Andreas Gursky) from a digitally generated internegative or interpositive will become increasingly hard to find over the next few years.