Anyone ever have to choose between LF or digital?

It's a choice between Apples & Oranges, but has anyone else had to choose between a

large format system or a high resolution digital SLR? Have you made the LF choice and

been happy? Had regrets? Can offer insights? What about the life span of LF photography

and film in this digital age? Digital backs cost an arm and a leg so are not really an option

for me. Does anyone have experience with the Horseman View Camera Converter used

with a digital SLR? Sounds kinda funky. Any input and opinions are welcome.

 

Background info - if interested:

I would be a newbie to LF photography since it's been 20 years since I used a view camera

(in photography class). I recently sold my medium format gear to my employer ﾖ so I still

get to use it :-) and now I'm trying to choose between two very different systems for me

personally: a large format view camera or a high resolution digital SLR. The large format

would probably be the Walker Titan SF 4x5 (or the Arca Swiss F-Line) the high resolution

digital SLR would be the Canon 1Ds Mark II with tilt/shift lenses. Ideally I'd have both the

LF & DSLR systems but - you know how that goes $$$. Each system is really great for

different reasons, purposes and results. It stinks having to choose one or the other.

 

I work as a graphic designer/photographer. When I'm shooting just for myself it is usually

landscape, urban landscape, still life and portraiture. Me being so digital it should be a no

brainer (go with the Canon) but I keep feeling a soul connection with the images that can

be created with the large format camera and film; the resolving power and rich detail, the

ability to control plane of focus and perspective. Plus, many photographers whose work I

admire use LF, including Olaf Otto Becker, Peter Bialobrzeski, Michael Eastman, Alec Soth,

Edward Burtynsky, Richard Misrach, Joel Sternfeld, and Andreas Gursky. So I have a difficult

decision to make. A friend told me "why not choose whatever you will USE the most?"

which is very practical advice. But the soul part of me says... why not choose whatever you

will LOVE the most? I wonder if that could be large format.

Can't help you make up your mind. I would also like to have both.

 

I glanced at your gallery, "White Sands" says you should go LF, the second I find slightly indifferent. And the portraits I think would get more intense with the LF.

 

I think that I am personally committing myself more and more to LF, I am thinking of going beyond 4 x 5. I ask myself do I want to take one or two really memorable images perhaps in a year, or should I fall for making it really easy to capture an image (or maybe many, many non-memorable images).

 

You are right on my own trolley track re: canon 1ds mk2 and tilt shift, and I applaud your selection of photographers. Misrach, directed me in a certain direction a dozen years ago, and I haven't looked back. (BTW I understand that he is going to digital PRINT, however I don't believe that he will ever give up on film based capture.)

Get both. Or, if you live in an urban area, rent a LF and various lenses and see if you can appreciate the effort.

There's no choise as far as I'm concerned. A 100 years old German 5x7" plate camera and a handful of 50 years old lenses costs less than any DSLR. They also have a life expectancy way beyond the DSLR!

 

Most of the great advances in photographic optics over the last 60 years have been in the area of zoom lenses and rectilinear retrofocus wide angles - neither of which have had any impact on LF lenses. A top-of-the line LF lens from 1955 is still exellent, and can't be improved much in the next 50 years either!

I compromise. 8MPel dSLR for work that fits 4/3rds nicely, nice shen-hao LF camera for when

I want to take a proper photo - taking many minutes to apply care & attention to a shot,

tweak movements, etc. Results are scanned and tweaked a bit in PS.

 

The advice to rent and see sounds good as well.

I don't get it. If you have the money for a 1Ds then just buy a 5D (so you can use the same full frame tilt shift lens) and with the money you save you can still buy an excellent used (or maybe new) large format system. Yeah the build quality isn't the same but the image quality won't be far off.

Both.

 

You can buy a Super Graphic that is all alum and tough as nails for about $350.

I chose digital (the 5d specifically), but only after giving LF the old college try. I felt like I

missed a lot of opportunities in the field (and through various failures in the darkroom).

12x18 prints look pretty good up against the beautifully detailed 24x30s I envisioned but

couldn't capitalize on.

 

But, that LF voice probably won't go away unless you try it, so I'd say give it a whirl. The

equipment seems to be really holding its value in the market.

 

Best of luck

I chose both. The only problem is going out of town. I think you have to choose what you are going to photograph and don't carry both or it will drain your ambition. But going locally, I will toss a bird lens, macro and the LF stuff in the truck. The other thing is to minimize your lenses, not shorting yourself but buying and carrying only what you need. I don't need a digital landscape lens and I don't need LF macro or bird lenses (couldn't carry an LF bird lens anyway!). I also toss a Canon 620 in the LF bag - great polaroids :)A 1325 tripod fits both systems, a B1 works with both and the same Trekker takes both systems. The biggest hassle is film with LF. Even with QL's, it takes up a lot of space.

Personally, I feel that if you are drawn to 4x5, then that's where you should direct the bulk

of your resources and creative energy. I used to shoot mostly 4x5 in college, then a mix of

35mm, 6x7cm, and 4x5 in my travel stock business, and then went almost exclusively to

35mm for a few years based on its portability and system flexibility. While I loved the

speed and ease of working with 35mm, I realized that I was for all intents and purposes

treating my Nikon like a large format camera in terms of my landscape fieldwork, which

represents the bulk of my photography these days. So, sometime in 2003 I pulled the

Canham DLC 4x5 out of the closet and put it back in service. I have only used my Nikons

infrequently since.

 

Do I miss opportunities that I would have shot with the Nikon? Yes, but mostly

"sketchbook" kinds of images, rather than subjects/situations that I feel strongly about.

Do I miss IMPORTANT opportunities to photograph the images I really want to make

because I'm using a large format camera? No. If anything, the process of preplanning and

previsualization that large format photography forces on you has helped in this regard. Do

I feel my work is stronger with large format? Yes, absolutely. It is more consistent, better

conceived, better excecuted, and more selective. My hit percentage has increased

dramatically because I am more selective about what I shoot and more careful about how I

work. For creating the kinds of images that are important to me, large format is clearly the

way to go.

 

I will probably buy a DSLR for "sketchbook," travel, and personal people photography (the

things I've been using 35mm for) when a lightweight 12MP+, full-frame camera is

available for around $1K, but I will still use the view camera as my primary photographic

tool. The quality and capabilities of a large format view camera simply can't be beat so

long as it suits the goals, needs, and personality of the photographer.

Why does it have to be either/or? A "starter" LF kit doesn't need to cost a whole lot, and in any case it'll be less than a new Canon 20D plus even one "L" lens. FWIW, about the only film format I don't shoot much of these days is 35mm. I take my 20D on vacations. I still use LF for those times when photography is the main event -- usually within a few hours' drive of home, and/or a short hike from the car. I only have six film holders, so any LF shoot is limited to 12 shots total.

I have done both for some time. I use a Kodak 14nx 14mp dslr and shoot large format. I recently thought I'd kicked the LF habit altogether, but isntead I have gone from 4x5 to 8x10.

 

They can compliment eachother. Most of my work is digital, and I scan my LF and print digitally, but still LF looks different, more contemplative. I like and use each for different purposes.

Great topic and some common sense responses.

 

I go with "get both", along the lines of don't blow the wad on digital, split the difference with a nice LF setup. Others have mentioned, the LF/film setup will last you the rest of your life of creating images. Digital will too, but how many times will you have to "upgrade" to get the next megapixel upgrade. It's the one thing that boggles me.. every year or so, or even sooner, they've expanded the technology, stuff get's smaller, more sophisticated, and unless you keep up, your digital stuff will very quickly become outdated; just like our PC's/laptops are at best good for 3yrs. That LF lens made in 1950 remains the same.... And as long as there is a market demand for sheet film, we can still be shooting until our last days.

 

I've got a digital camera (not a dslr) too. It's always nice to have a camera ready for those spontaneous situations, family vacations etc.... and for taking photos of the Wista that's for sale on eBay... :-)

 

I used to do with 35mm/film what some are doing with digital today; go out and shoot 10 or 20 rolls of film and hope you got a few nice shots or fill up 5 2GB memory cards. Kills me to read in forums... "Was in Death Valley over the weekend and came home with 2,000 images..." What's the point? Maybe the LF guy only came away with 20 and only 2 are worth printing... but at least for me, the thought process, shot selection and overall experience makes 4x5/LF worth it.

 

Anyway, you've stirred up a good discussion and I imagine you'll have a little piece of both when all is said and done.

 

good luck,

Lon

If you have the money for a 1Ds2 then you can afford both systems. It just won't be with

the 1Ds2. I bought a 5D which is working out great for me. I sold my 24mm TS-E though.

I found that if I wanted to spend the time to shoot with movements I'd rather just use the

view camera. I wouldn't invest $6-7K in a single digital body at this point but would

rather invest less than half that amount on the 5D which performs at a VERY high level for

less than half the price. Spend the money on glass instead which holds it's value much

better. By going for the cheaper (and lighter 5D) it will allow you to purchase a view

camera setup as well. Different tools for different jobs.

Seth, I had the same problem not too long ago - should I get a 4x5 system in a digital era?

And I got a pretty sweet Arca Swiss F-Field that is foldable and doesn't weight a ton and even

though sometimes I worry that soon "everything" will be digital and I won't be able to find

parts or necessary accessories for my LF, I still enjoy it right now. I also have Nikon D1x and

even though I cannot compare it to 1Ds I am generally not using it when I don't have to.

Definitely chose what you LOVE and you will USE it!

 

Magda

I shoot with both. I use canon digital gear at my day job at a newspaper, and I shoot 8x10

for all of my personal work. The equipment that is right for you depends on the kind of

work you want to do. It kind of seems like a no-brainer to me. If you need speed,

efficiency and the ability to capture fleeting moments, go with the digital gear. If you want

absolute image quality, control, and--most importantly--if the process of making the

image is important to you as I suspect it is with the photographers you mentioned, go with

the view camera--I'd even say go for an 8x10.

 

As others have mentioned, I suspect that making a bit of a compromise on the digital end

will save you enough cash to get a good 4x5 camera. While the t/s canon lenses are nice, I

find that checking focus and using movements with a 35mm-based digital system is

somewhat hard since you can't examine the groundglass with a loupe. So it seems like a

5d and a few simple lenses would compliment a large format system quite nicely. If you

want movements, use a view camera.

 

Most of the photographers you mentioned print quite large. I don't want to start a whole

digital vs film debate, since in my mind they are both good tools for different jobs. But I've

compared 50-inch prints from the 1ds MkII with 8x10 negatives, and there is simply no

comparison. I suspect 4x5 would also still be way ahead at large sizes. The thing about

film is that even once it starts to fall apart at huge enlargement sizes, it does so more

gracefully than digital does. Gursky's huge prints (From 5x7 negs) tend to be grainy, but

this is not as objectionable to me as digital noise would be.

 

If you get a digital system and an 8x10 (or 4x5) view camera, you'll really have the best of

both worlds. And why you don't need to spend a lot on the view camera, I can't say enough

good things about the arca system.

Thanks everyone for all the helpful responses, they are much appreciated.

 

Wilbur: Thanks for you insight. I'd rather make one memorable image than lots of so-so

images. LF will require quality over quantity, since I'll be making fewer images and really

thinking about the whole process. Misrach - powerful stuff. Years ago when I was first

getting interested in photography a teacher suggested going to a photo exhibit, I heard

about one and went to it... opening night... I didn't know a thing about the photographer,

the place was packed with people and there were really HUGE prints on the walls, featuring

perfectly exposed and printed desolate desert spaces with traces of human activity. It

really resonated with me, it was Misrach, and by dumb luck I had stumbled into his vision.

 

Pico: I would love both, no can do. I live in the Los Angeles area, I'm going to do what you

suggest and rent a LF camera and give it a go.

 

Ole: Thanks for showing me the flip-side of the coin. I've been concerned that digital is

making film cameras obsolete, but actually digital cameras seem to become obsolete in

just a hand-full of years from their release. LF has been around for decades. Thanks for

bringing up the lenses too. What do you think of these lenses for 4x5: Schneider 5.6/150

Super-Symmar XL and the Schneider 5.6/90mm Super-Angulon XL. I'm willing to take on

more weight to gain greater movement.

 

Tim: I have an Olympus E-1, it is only a 5mp DSLR but it's the 4/3rds and takes very sharp

clean images. So I would continue to use that but start using LF for a "proper photo" as

you say.

 

Ravi: I've been looking into the 5D, a friend just picked one up and likes it very much. She

doesn't have any of the tilt/shift lenses but we could rent one and try it out on her camera.

--- I'm just greedy and a bit foolish when it comes to the 16mp 1DsMkII ;-)

 

Troy: I'm familiar with the Speed Graphic and Crown Graphic but not the Super Graphic. I'll

look into it and see if it has rear movements.

 

Mike B: I can appreciate that LF is not the thing for you, and it may not be for me either

but I'll give it a whirl (if for no other reason than to get rid of that LF voice). It really

wouldn't be such a risk to try since the equipment holds its value like you said. I'm going

to try a rental first. Did you buy into a LF system and then sell it? Do you still have it?

 

Mike L: Digital "polaroids" also have histograms (nice!). If I had the choice of 3 lenses and

no B1, or 2 lenses and the B1 I'd take the latter. What do you think of a 150mm XL and a

90mm XL lens for the 4x5? Honestly, I don't even know how quick-load film works. Does it

free you from using film holders? I don't think they had that stuff 20 years ago.

 

Justin: I value your experience and the clear way you express yourself and I can relate to

everything you've said. Like you were with the Nikon, I've been trying to create images with

the 6x4.5 that would be better made with a LF camera. Depending on what the subject is I

shoot digital, 35mm film or medium format but I've been lacking the virtues of a large

format camera . LF would fit my needs for more detail/resolution and control or the

image, it could suit my goals if I can somewhat master it, and would certainly compliment

my personality. I'm happy to take plenty of time with a subject.

 

Raphael: I love when photography is the "main event" don't you!!? Yeah, the either/or

approach stems from my wanting to commit to the best that I can afford. I have a 5mp

DSLR so I'm certainly not up the creek without a digital paddle. Thus I figure I could invest

a bit more in a LF camera and lenses I really want and will truly appreciate instead of

"settling" for a camera that doesn't have the movements or lenses that don't have the

coverage.

 

Quentin: Between your 14mp and 8x10 I'd say you are a resolution lover. I can't even get

my mind around a 8x10 camera at this point. Do you scan the 8x10s yourself or do you

send them out?

 

Lon: Thanks for your response and I am going to do "both". My first step is to rent a LF

camera for a weekend to get a feel for that "over all experience" of LF. The digital world is

great, I really do love it and all my images end up as digital files on my G5 Mac at home or

the G4 at work, but then time goes by and there's a G6 out and then a 7 and software

keeps updating and before you know it a 5mp sensor keeps seeming smaller and smaller

and the digital merry-go-round keeps spinning on and on and there is no getting off

there's just more stuff to buy. UGGGH!

 

Andrew: I agree, $7K for a digital camera body is too much even for a camera as good as

that. I'm inclined to think it's better to go with the LF system now... let the digital advances

march onward and upward... and in the mean time I'll slow down and concentrate on the

whole image making process and see what I can learn, improve upon and grow into

visually. By the time I'm ready to come out from under the dark cloth there will be some

new digital wonder-camera to lust after.

 

Maga: Thanks for sharing your experience with the Arca Swiss F-Field... and also the

advice to Love what I Use. That's good to keep in mind no matter what equipment we are

blessed with.

 

Noah: Yes the process of making a picture is more important to me now than it ever has

been, and I want to improve and grow. I don't feel ready for the 8x10 however. Like you, I

too enjoy using both film and digital and thanks for the good word on the Arca system.

As others have said, do both. I do. Restricting yourself is like saying you will only date brunette women. For cheaper hobbies try beachcombing or writing.

Seth, you asked me "What do you think of these lenses for 4x5: Schneider 5.6/150 Super-Symmar XL and the Schneider 5.6/90mm Super-Angulon XL. I'm willing to take on more weight to gain greater movement."

 

To be brutally honest, I think they're serious overkill. If you were intending to use then on 5x7" - good. On 4x5" the limitation on movements will be the camera bellows and not the lenses.

 

As I mentioned my lenses are old to very old. So my (old, cheap) equivalents are a 150mm Symmar, and a 90mm f:8 Super-Angulon. Both allow more movements than my camera can give, so I usually use a simple 90mm Angulon on 4x5".

 

If you want to fit LF into a tight budget, get lenses from the 60's to the 80's. They cost less than half of anything with an "XL" in the name, and are not that much worse!

 

At http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen_GF.jpg is a picture shot on 5x7" film with a 1970's Angulon 165mm. A detail is at http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen_utsnitt.jpg - it's sharp enough for me, and the 165mm Angulon covers 8x10".

"Mike L: Digital "polaroids" also have histograms (nice!). If I had the choice of 3 lenses and no B1, or 2 lenses and the B1 I'd take the latter. What do you think of a 150mm XL and a 90mm XL lens for the 4x5? Honestly, I don't even know how quick-load film works. Does it free you from using film holders? I don't think they had that stuff 20 years ago."

 

90/150, 90/180 or even 90/210 is very good 2 lens combo. I used the latter for years. Everyone is different though and this is a personal choice. I have finally given up on trying to like wide angles and use a 110XL/Schneider 180/Apo-Ronar 300. I could live without the 180 but I use it enough to justify it. Notice the only expensive lens is the 110XL. You could replace the 90 XL with the Nikon 90 and the 150 XL with a Rodenstock 150 S and still have a great set up. The R-150-S does not set in the back seat of the XL's car :) But, hey, here I am trying to save you money and I own an Ebony 4x5 which is overspending for a camera! (I like it, by the way - worth it to me).

 

As for Quick Loads, I'd use them all the time if I could bring myself to justify them when I'm photographing locally. For trips they are great for me. It limits your film choices. I'm okay with that but since you are starting out, you may want a couple of film holders to experiment.

 

The question you didn't ask is what if a digital 4x5 back under $5000 came out and did not need to be tethered to a computer - would I choose digital or film? I would welcome the digital. Personally, I don't think I'd choose digital if that back were medium format on a 4x5. I like medium format sizes and quality but can do what I want with digital APS and 4x5.

 

Mike

IMHO, I'd go digital first. It's versatile, and smaller and lighter. You can probably afford both, though, if you shop used equipment keenly, especially near an area like LA CA, or via the internet.

 

I've been through some equipment in the last few years, and here's how I see the film vs. digital thing: digital is making advances, but the resolution still can't beat properly scanned film. CCD's have a material limitation and therefore a finite limit as to the image quality digital can get. A breakthrough in material technology is needed to get digital on par with film. It will happen, the only question is when, and how much it'll cost. For 35mm-size SLRs, it's quickly getting harder to tell the difference at normal enlargement sizes.

 

Digital SLR's have the same limitation as film 35mm SLR's: you can only enlarge so much before the image quality suffers. How big do you really need to get, though? Digital software IS much more convenient than, say, investing in your own color printing setup in terms of time, trouble, and expense. With a laptop, you can take your 'lab' on the road with you, too.

 

I don't buy into the hype about "the next bigger megapixel" DSLR. IMO, going from 6mp to 8 or 10mp may be diminished returns, especially for the cost, without a major change in image quality. 20-24 mp in a 35mm-size DSLR would provide a very noticeable image quality improvement that would get my immediate attention. It'll happen one day; I just have to be patient.

 

Having lost everything but my FM3a and 3 lenses to Hurricane Katrina, I'm starting over. I recently got a new Nikon D70s over a D200. I should have bought a D50, really, and saved some more money (better still would have been to find a nice used one getting dumped by someone who was all hot for a new D200 or whatever the magazine-article-of-the-month hyped up). Same Mp size, different memory card, and only a couple of less-advanced features that I'd never have missed. When the eventual successor to the D200 is around long enough for the price to get reasonable, maybe I'll get one. The lenses are the key investment in a DSLR anyway. I'd choose a brand where I could accumulate lenses as time went on, and upgrade the body every few years. Nikon and Canon already seem to have this route figured out.

 

Looking at the galleries on this site, I don't see where a less-recent DSLR is hampering anyone from making stunning images (just surf the 'recent top photo' gallery and check out the cameras used - there's some real surprises in there). Now that the purchase is behind me, my plan is to get back to making photographs. The latest gadgets or a particular brand won't make me a better photographer any more than buying another guitar will make me a better player - only practicing and learning will - for either persuit.

 

Whew! All that said, the used 4x5 field camera I recently ordered (for an upcoming milestone birthday) arrived yesterday, along with a new 58mm and used 210mm lenses, 4 film holders, some film, and a changing bag. Now I can easily get a great 100mp+ scanned image at home, and if I should make a really stunning photograph, I'll cough up the $70 or so to get it drum scanned. I'm excited about having the adjustments that my SLR's don't have. I know it'll force me to plan each shot better.

You have to consider what your needs are. I shoot digital and film at work, both in the studio and on locations. Whenever I get the chance (fewer times than I care/need), I shoot film with my Linhof, for enjoyment. After awhile Seth, when shooting with LF, your pace will change and after you get to know what all the movements do and feel confident, your other format shooting will improve also, greatly. I still prefer the enjoyment of shooting LF (nothing like seeing the world through an 8x10 ground glass!!) and have told my wife that she will have to pry my 4x5 out of my dead rigamorticed hands... One thing I do want you to be aware of though (keep this in the back of your head!!!) after shooting LF for awhile, yes your going to see a change in your abilities but be aware that your striving for perfection... composition, exposure, post production and you'll be happy and all that but... your next camera choice maybe a wise choice of getting a Holga and shoot from the hip... literally! This will get the "fun and spontaneity" back. I was taking creative seminars/darkroom work (years ago) when the professor asked to see our work. Long story shortened... this was his recommedation because my images "..were to perfect..." as he said and I have grown further from using that plastic piece of fun in ways I never imagined! Personally, LF shooting is my breath of life and I will always choice it for my personal enjoyment!

Ole "http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen_GF.jpg"

 

I cannot quite make out how many fingers that bloke in the most distant mountain is holding up.

 

(reminds me of my first graphics art instructor who no matter how good the work, would always say, "not quite as crisp as it could be"... I was almost ruined for life.)

These type of threads (and there are previous ones) tend to over emphasize technical aspects like resolution comparisions. The usage of the cameras is very different. Noah referred to this with his mention of "process". LF photography takes a commitment of using a tripod and taking more time. (Yes, handheld is possible, but I don't see the point in this era.) Generally the LF photographer aims to work more carefully, taking fewer photographys but with a higher fraction of "keepers". Movements are important to me. Also the large view on the ground glass that lets the photographer really see the image, even if you aren't using movements.

 

Re lenses. I agree with Ole that the 90 mm SA-XL and 150 mm SS-XL are excessive for 4x5. I think that there are other lenses that have plenty of coverage for 4x5 that cost and weigh less. These two lenses are more suited for 5x7. My lens set is 72 / 110 / 180 / 270 / 450. For many years I just had the 180, which has tremedous coverage for 4x5. The 110 focal length makes a very nice moderate wide angle for 4x5 but is too close to 150 to make a good pair with that focal length. If you are sure that you want a 150 as your normal lens, you might look for a Apo-Sironar-S or Apo-Symmar-L for their extra coverage over older designs.

W T: variety is good! There are unique advantages to LF and also DSLR ﾖ both of which are

desirable and worth using.

 

Ole: Those example links are great, very sharp! A bright focus on the GG and being able to

take advantage of the camera's movements is important to me, especially for urban

landscape. However, paying for extra performance that I will never use is simply a waste of

money (which you didn't state explicitly but I get the point). To arrive at the two lenses I

suggested as possible choices I considered the following: the two cameras I'm interested

in have extensive movement capabilities, I knew enough that I'd have to get an idea of

what the lens requirements would be to take advantage of these movements. To do this I

created a 4x5in rectangle in Adobe Illustrator and then a 259mm circle representing the

image circle of the 90 Super-Angulon XL, a 386mm image circle for the 150mm Super-

Symmar XL, and also a 234mm circle for the 150mm Apo-Symmar L. The XL circles

provide lots of coverage (the 150XL's 386mm image circle is MASSIVE) then I moved the

circles around on screen relative to the 4x5 area so I could visually see how much

movement there was. I also checked out squashing the circles into an oval (to represent tilt

or swing). The conclusion I reached was if I used a combination of movements, such as

significant rise + swing, I was going to need a large image circle to keep the corners

bright and sharp. I'm not sure my logic on this is completely correct and I'd be happy to

spend less and have lighter lenses in return which would be a win-win. The 386mm image

circle of the 150mm Super-Symmar XL is complete over-kill, but then look at the 150mm

Apo-Symmar L which can't handle the max rise without any swing added. How often I'd

need that rise and swing I'm not sure. Here is a link with jpgs of my "rise tests" (note I

reduced them proportionally 50% in order to post).

 

http://www.sethhansen.com/custom/4x5_lens_coverage.html

 

Mike L: I was looking into the Ebony ﾖ mainly because Joe Cornish uses it. Looks beautiful,

like the kind of camera you'd just want to touch.

 

D.B.: I'm real sorry to hear you lost equipment in hurricane Katrina and are starting over,

but congrats on your "new" 4x5 field camera and lenses - what camera did you get?

 

Scott: You've hit on one of the reasons I'm excited about the prospect of working in LF...

the greater demands in decision making before and during image creation might

potentially elevate my visualization abilities. I can strive of improvement. An image isn't

great because of the camera, but rather because of our response to the photograph. For

all it's esoteric technicalities photography can still be artistic, inspiring, thought provoking

and a hundred other things including FUN!

 

Michael: The image circle for the Apo-Symmar L is shown on the rise diagrams I created

(see the link above).