|
Two types of large format cameras have been shown in this thread - monorails, like the Sinar F1 dorkasaurus_rex uses, and technical/press cameras like the Crown Graphic or Linhof Technika. There's a third major category, though: field cameras. My Chamonix 045N-2 is an example; there's at least three other people in the Dorkroom who own one. Other examples include the Toyo 45A, Zone VI, Shen Hao, Ikeda Anba, and the Canham DLC. My Chamonix: Somebody else's Chamonix, folded: The advantages of field cameras include light weight (not including lens, the 4x5 Chamonix is 3 pounds), compact size when folded, and ability to use wide-angle lenses more easily than a press or technical camera. Disadvantages are smaller amounts of movement than monorails and lesser precision in movements than technical cameras.
|
# ¿ Feb 7, 2013 16:28 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 16:48 |
|
Fragrag posted:Saw this image at a museum a while back: Considering the vantage point, there might not be any movements at all - just looks like a very wide lens. If this picture were taken from a lower point, it'd definitely require a lot of rise to get everything in the frame.
|
# ¿ Feb 7, 2013 16:30 |
|
rcman50166 posted:Advice Needed Do it. It's a rebadged Cambo 45NXII. Also see if the guy will give you any of the accessories you'll need, like film holders. (Don't pay more than $10 each.) The lens won't give you the greatest freedom to use movements, but you can worry about upgrading later when you get more comfortable with the LF workflow. 150mm on 4x5 is like 40mm or so on 35mm, in my experience. e: the 4x5 diagonal is almost exactly 3.75x the 35mm diagonal. 150mm/3.75=40mm. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Feb 7, 2013 |
# ¿ Feb 7, 2013 18:47 |
|
xzzy posted:My biggest concern is being able to still use the thing after removing the lenses. With the big LF style ones it looks like you can just unscrew the lens and be done with it. The enlargers and other options seem to have their glass permanently mounted. If there was some way to be sure the iris would be usable after modification I really have no reason to prefer one option over another. Get something that's budget priced because one or more of the shutter speeds doesn't work properly. Since you'll be locking the shutter open anyway (?) it won't matter.
|
# ¿ Feb 11, 2013 23:47 |
|
How did the negatives from that cheap as hell 612 back ever turn out?
|
# ¿ Feb 22, 2013 18:26 |
|
dukeku posted:That looks like every Portra 400 photo I've scanned. Yep. 8th-samurai posted:get a v700 you won't regret it. Yep.
|
# ¿ Mar 1, 2013 17:32 |
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Depending on how selling my car works out, I'm thinking about picking up one of those Fuji 6x9 rangefinders to use as a landscape camera for when I'm out on my motorcycle. I saw an older one at a shop for ~$200. Can anyone talk me out of it? You didn't specify which 6x9 rangefinder, but I personally would want the GSW690. 90mm just isn't wide enough, but I use 65mm on 6x7 all the time. edit: 90mm isn't wide enough for general landscapes use, anyway. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Mar 11, 2013 |
# ¿ Mar 11, 2013 01:04 |
|
home scanned portra Aurora by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
# ¿ Mar 18, 2013 03:17 |
|
guidoanselmi posted:Phase One H20 back for sale for $850: http://stlouis.craigslist.org/pho/3663319790.html Do you have a laptop with Firewire you can keep attached to your setup at all times? Then yes, go for it!
|
# ¿ Mar 22, 2013 18:40 |
|
guidoanselmi posted:that sounds ominous. does it not have an SD/CF card slot? Nope. I've seen one in use in a studio - the guy had the camera on a large wheeled camera rig, with 20' Firewire cables going to his Power Mac G4, which was on a wheeled desk. Even the possibility of using a laptop is questionable - Googling tells me Macbooks can't all provide enough power on the Firewire port to operate the H20.
|
# ¿ Mar 22, 2013 19:33 |
|
atomicthumbs posted:I am never developing Acros in HC-110 again for two reasons: the midtones were so flat that it was hell getting them remotely acceptable, and it's not grainy enough. I will not have you malign this magical combination Lookit dat highlight detail: Headlands by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr This was 3 stops underexposed but there's still plenty of shadow detail: Muir Woods by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr I can only suggest that you make sure you're scanning to 16-bit, not 8-bit files, and... maybe agitate more? Anyway don't give up on a developer/film combination just because you liked the grain you got when you had a lab process a notably grain-free film for you
|
# ¿ Mar 23, 2013 00:21 |
|
atomicthumbs posted:What sort of agitation/time did you do for these? Dilution E, 7 minutes, 2 inversions every minute. If you need more contrast just agitate more/more often.
|
# ¿ Mar 23, 2013 01:22 |
|
look it's a dumb joke Pick A Pack O' Packfilm by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
# ¿ Mar 23, 2013 02:30 |
|
I put myself down for the 65/90 body only combo package. Why? Well, for starters, I already have 65 and 90mm lenses that will work. I already own a Chamonix, but the Travelwide definitely has a few use cases I have in mind. It's like with my XA; I already have fancy 35mm [D]SLRs, but I use the XA for completely different things.
|
# ¿ Apr 3, 2013 17:45 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If the shutter fits or the body can be adapted, it should take a Super Angulon too, right? In the Large Format Photography Forum thread on the Travelwide, they say there's 20mm of focus travel, in part to accomodate f/8 90mm lenses. The FFD of the Angulon is 90mm, whereas with the Super Angulon and most other f/8 90mm lenses it's about 100mm. It just means you'd have to make a new focus scale and be careful not to focus past infinity, and minimum focus distance would be further away.
|
# ¿ Apr 3, 2013 19:02 |
|
What focal length is your C-Claron? Is it the 477/6.7?
|
# ¿ Apr 7, 2013 18:52 |
|
voodoorootbeer posted:My uncle is looking to sell some film gear and he's offered to sell it to me for what a used camera dealer is offering him. Here's the list: Buy all the RB stuff for $750 or something and flip one of the bodies and the 37mm fisheye on eBay for $400. A great deal for everybody. edit: My RZ67 kit is a 50, 65, 110, and 180. That's all the focal lengths I really need for anything. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Apr 10, 2013 |
# ¿ Apr 10, 2013 17:49 |
|
Spedman posted:Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_qeZOWqchM, I think its XKCD Larper. That is, indeed, how large format lenses work. Think of the image circle as the intersection between the cone of light projected by the lens and the film plane. Focused at 1:1, the image circle is twice as wide as it is when focused at infinity; bellows extension focused at 1:1 is twice what it is focused at infinity.
|
# ¿ Apr 13, 2013 16:25 |
|
I'm not entirely sure how to make the contrast and color on 'Conestoga' work for me. Jo's Country Market by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr Conestoga by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
# ¿ Apr 13, 2013 20:31 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This is one reason I'm preparing to give large format a serious try. Theoretically the Scheimpflug principle is the solution to this - tilt your plane of focus away from things you want out of focus (and conversely, shift it towards things you want in focus to increase apparent depth-of-field without stopping way down). do it pull the trigger
|
# ¿ Apr 16, 2013 18:24 |
|
I used the Scheimpflug principle to increase the apparent depth of field in these photographs. Three Months After Christmas by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr Three Months After Christmas by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
# ¿ Apr 17, 2013 15:55 |
|
Meglitsch Poles & Log Furniture by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr A funny story about this one; I was driving past this on my way to Prineville, Oregon. The light wasn't right, so I figured I'd take a picture on my way back. On the way back, I missed my turn and ended up having to turn around in a trailer park just past it on the highway. I had just taken this picture when a guy on an ATV zooms up, locks up his brakes, and hops off, yelling at me that I should apologize. It turns out that part of the patch of dirt I'd turned around in was his front yard. Even though there'd been no kids or dogs around, I decided I should defuse the situation doing what he wanted, which was to apologize for endangering his kids and dog by driving across a corner of his "lawn." He insisted on shaking my hand, then hopped back on his ATV and zoomed off back down the highway.
|
# ¿ Apr 18, 2013 03:07 |
|
Fragrag posted:Can you please explain the movements of your lens and what you hoped to achieve with it? I still don't understand how to apply Scheimpflug in practice. I tilted the lens forward a few degrees in each case. In the first one, as a result, the plane of focus went through both the foreground and the pile of trees. In the second, closer-up one I also added a touch of swing so that the plane of focus was parallel with the outside of the pile of trees. The image Platystemon posted is illustrative, but I prefer this simplified diagram from Wikipedia because it emphasizes the geometry: In practice, your lens is generally much, much closer to the image than to the subject, so you need very little movement to change the plane of focus. The longer your lens or the closer your subject, the more movement is needed.
|
# ¿ Apr 18, 2013 15:55 |
|
8th-samurai posted:Speed Graphics are press cameras with less range of movement than a field camera. MPPs are basically British Graphics. Look, there's even a side-mounted rangefinder! A Graphic is a great first 4x5 camera. Sure, you won't have as much movement as many 4x5 cameras, but there's some, and it's great for getting used to the LF workflow, which is quite a bit different than with smaller formats.
|
# ¿ Apr 19, 2013 18:26 |
|
Spedman posted:Next time I'll use some loose RA-4 printing filters in front of the lens, as the paper negatives were really red, so I'll need to add lots of magenta and yellow. And the paper was developed in a Rollei digibase RA-4 kit at room temperature. Yeah, what Reichstag said. Contact printing/paper negs make me tempted to cobble together a DIY 8x10, and my Nikkor-M 300 would make a decent normal lens for it... Here's some scrub-tier LF - scanned 4x5 negatives. Hops Farm, Sauvie Island by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr Alpha Afovos, Rainier by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
# ¿ Apr 21, 2013 20:31 |
|
Rear Entrance by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
# ¿ Apr 28, 2013 18:10 |
|
Mightaswell posted:Well, popped my 120 cherry, and waiting for my Portra 800 negs from my RB67 to come back. How long have you had the RB67 now? The Clit Avoider posted:I just bought 10 rolls of shanghai gp3 since it £2 a roll, is it actually as terrible as it seems? Most of the example shots I remember from this thread were 4x5, and didn't look too terrible for the investment. Yes.
|
# ¿ May 30, 2013 20:07 |
|
The Clit Avoider posted:[edit] Speaking of impulse buys, I bought a Fujinon SW 90mm f8 for $130. I already have a 90mm f/8, but that's a hell of a buy. Jealous. edit: what LF camera are you putting it on, out of curiosity? I'm not sure I've seen you post about it/pictures taken with it.
|
# ¿ May 30, 2013 20:26 |
|
aliencowboy posted:Does anyone here have any (negative) experience using a Toyo field camera? The more I read about 4x5 outfits, the more this seems like an ideal set up for me. I'm sure I won't be the only one here to say that Chamonix is by far the best bang for the buck in field cameras.
|
# ¿ Jun 1, 2013 18:12 |
|
copen posted:I'm 6'10 and 220 pounds. I can take it anywhere I chose not to. If you used it to shoot 645 I can see why you would have made the choice not to. The value proposition changes a little when you have that much less negative. 6x7 is glorious by comparison, and if $60 for a 6x7 back is too much money to spend for you, you probably shouldn't be shooting medium format film to begin with. Here is a picture from one of the many times I went hiking with my RZ67. Garden of the Gods by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr Well, these days, I'm hiking with my 4x5, so I guess my opinion probably doesn't mean much in this discussion anyway.
|
# ¿ Jun 1, 2013 23:51 |
|
copen posted:These look hot. I wan't one. I don't deserve one. The tripod/head combo I usually put mine on weighs 3 pounds And yeah, my LF bag is way lighter than my MF bag, even if it's larger.
|
# ¿ Jun 2, 2013 18:39 |
|
copen posted:Stop tempting me. I'm not good enough to be spending that much per click of the shutter. On the first page And here's a shot from dukeku of my Chamonix in action: Untitled by lucas.deshazer, on Flickr aliencowboy posted:I'm pretty sure my Manfrotto tripod with ballhead is rated for up to 6 pounds and weighs about 4. Would you mind showing your large format bags? That's a weird load to weight ratio... my 3 pound setup is rated for a 17.6 pound load. big scary monsters posted:e: normally I take a Pentax ME too for snapshots where I can't be bothered to set up the monorail. Yeah, I'm always also carrying my XA.
|
# ¿ Jun 2, 2013 20:16 |
|
McMadCow posted:It's not a matter of it being too big and heavy. It's too big and heavy for its function. It's a waste of the space it takes up in your bag. As someone else mentioned, it's designed to be a studio camera. I already carry an MPP 4x5 press camera in my bag, my Hassy is a much lighter and compact package for my 120 needs. IMO there's nothing the RB/Z offers to justify the increased weight and space out in the field. I can think of two big things the RB/RZ offers over a Hasselblad: bellows focusing and a superior aspect ratio
|
# ¿ Jun 2, 2013 21:48 |
|
Fragrag posted:Someone please post their picture of their Chamonix loaded in a shoulder bag with like 10 film holders. That really got me mouthwatering, especially after borrowing a heavy rear end Sinar for fieldwork. 10 film holders is a little excessive. I don't normally carry more than 5 (that's 10 sheets of film!), and when I've gone out with the intention of taking a particular picture I've gone out with just one holder before. If I'm carrying more than 5, the extras are in a bag in my car or something, and I have 20 of them. I have two main bags that I use for carrying my Chamonix in different situations. For everyday use I appreciate having extra room in the bag, so I use my huge Domke J-1: Camera to the right in the large insert, 3-5 lenses in the other inserts, lightmeter and loupe in the front pockets, holders in one end pocket, darkcloth in the other end pocket, filters in the flap pocket. Sometimes I need to travel a little lighter/more compactly and I put most of the above in my Think Tank Retrospective 10: Camera in the main compartment, 3 lenses stacked in the other part of the main compartment, lightmeter and loupe and sometimes filters in the front inside pocket, film holders in the front outside pocket, and darkcloth stuffed across the top of the main compartment (not shown).
|
# ¿ Jun 3, 2013 17:34 |
|
Mr. Despair posted:p67 supremacy. Focal plane shutters Nice sheets. Is your bed shaped like a ME Super?
|
# ¿ Jun 3, 2013 18:55 |
|
6x12 panoramic rollfilm backs with actual light seals worth a poo poo (i.e. not the Da Yi back) are really expensive, like $500-600 for something I'm going to use occasionally at best. My solution? Cut my own half-frame darkslide. Results? A qualified success. I definitely need to clean up the edges a little, and I can afford to cut the margin between the halves a little thinner. The usable part of each image is about 45 mm high, so it's a bit skinnier than the 56mm tall 6x12 - but it'll definitely suit my purposes. Now I just have to come up with a system to make sure I don't double expose a side... Spedman posted:It arrived: Also make sure to get a Petzval that's too small for the format so you get wicked field curvature and vignetting. It's what all the cool kids are doing.
|
# ¿ Jul 23, 2013 04:55 |
|
8th-snype posted:Not prewashing, very shameful. Using Shanghai GP3, very shameful.
|
# ¿ Aug 4, 2013 18:21 |
|
Testing out the Type 55 I won on eBay:
|
# ¿ Aug 4, 2013 22:45 |
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Testing out the Type 55 I won on eBay: And a scan of the negative: Top Rack Only by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr Pretty loving awesome. I hope New 55 goes somewhere.
|
# ¿ Aug 5, 2013 07:37 |
|
|
# ¿ Mar 28, 2024 16:48 |
|
Spedman posted:That is rad, I was always bummed I never got to shoot some 4x5 instant. $5 shipped a sheet
|
# ¿ Aug 5, 2013 07:48 |