Sharpness diff between 645 and 4x5

I am quite speechless from your responses!

 

 

Lee thank you for considering loaning your equipment. You are truly a kind

person.

 

I should have posted the landscape image earlier so that the context of my

questions was clear. Attached is another... Pilgrims have just crossed Dorma

La, a 18,600ft pass on the second day of the three day circumambulation

around Mt. Kailash. In the background is Lake Gauri Kund

 

Without getting into specific issues, let me give an overarching response.

 

The Mamiya 6x7 is a great idea. However, having just invested in a Contax

set, I cannot justify another MF purchase.

 

I am quite convinced that there will be a significant difference in quality

(betwen MF and LF) when enlargements touch the 8ftx10ft size.

 

Which clearly suggests LF is the winner.

 

I am VERY VERY aware that getting good images out of LF is not a light task.

It may take a long time before I get good at it.

 

I know it is unadvisable (silly) to get into a project with an unfamiliar tool.

 

In this context let me say: I will carry the Contax and 'cover' all the LF images

that I shoot on the 120. A safety net if you will. No loss if I screw up the LF. But

if I get the image... wow!

 

Also, I hope to make multiple trips (3-4) over 2006. I know the area like the

back of my hand. I can always attempt the LF pictures again. (Obviously I will

never be able to replicate the light conditions etc.)

 

And I plan on spending at least 2 months in preparation with the LF camera.

Not much by any yardstick... but at least it I will not go in blind.

 

Having said this... I need to decide between a 4x5 (or 5x7) and a (8x10).

Leaving the expense aside for a second... it seems that a 8x10 will give me

better 8ftx10ft enlargements.

 

Weight and set up time are one of the several things to consider. Set up time

does not bother me as much since I have time on my side. And, I certainly do

not plan on carrying the LF. I will in all probability pack it in a hard case and

strap it onto a pack horse.

 

So I propose to study the 8x10 forums, follow the links in this thread, and

educate myself. Do not wish to hurry into a decision. I will also take up the

suggestion of calling Jim at Midwest Photo.

 

All suggestions towards lightweight 8x10 field cameras (keeping the expense

out for the moment), that I could study, will be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks again to each and everyone of who has taken the trouble of

responding with in-depth answers

 

Milan

Sounds like a good plan. You cant go wrong with a Contax with a 4x5 backup, or visa versa.

 

Going back to some of the enlargement iterations from before I would say for LF if everything is perfect, 12x should be your max so you can figure it out from there. That would be roughly 4x5 feet for 4x5, 5x7 feet for 5x7 and 8x10 feet for 8x10, but where in the heck are you going to find an 8 foot printer. A friend of mine had a 6' printer, but I have never heard of a high rez 8'.

 

Also another consideration for 5x7 and 8x10 is scanning. A drum scan is what you want and they are time consuming to run and very expensive to send out. I bought a used howtek 4500 just for that reason and I got it cheap. 8x10 E6 film if you buy it new and send it out to dev cost around $16 per shot and to do a 48 bit tiff drum scan at a top shop, could cost as much as $100-200 each and you have not even printed yet. At that price you could afford to buy a used drum scanner and come out ahead. I ended up with a total of about 2G complete in mine after I bought the latest version of Silverfast.

 

Right now I have a 8x10 rail camera and it is too heavy for me. I recently talked to jim at Midwest about lighter weight solutions.

One of his suggestion for a new camera was a TACHIHARA.

 

Also there is the older Kodak masterview metal folder that weighs around 12#. That would be one of my choices for a tough older metal camera. They go for about +- $1500 .

 

http://www3.sympatico.ca/doug.lavender/photography/menusandbuttons/masterview.html

 

There is the Wehman that goes for $1900 and it weighs about 9#.

 

http://www.wehmancamera.com/camera.html

 

Also there is the super light toho. With the short rail it weighs 3 Kg. I am not sure how sturdy it is though.

 

http://www.toho-machine.co.jp/FC-810.htm

 

On the super cheap and super light side is the Bender kit camera, but it does not have any sort of focus knob. Its slide rail only but it weighs about 5 3/4 #. Combine that with a 240mm G-claron and you should be at around 7#. If I were to go this route I would modify the lower rail clamps and tripod base to something more durable.

 

http://www.benderphoto.com/8x10.htm

 

Thats about all the LF 8x10 cameras that interest me, that I can think of and are fairly light and reasonably stiff. Jim did mention that the Canham 8x10 is a bit on the flimsy side so i ruled that out.

 

There are others too, like older Burke and james field and rail cameras, Kodak wood 2D, Ansco etc, but I am not sure how stiff those cameras are.

 

Personally I am working on sort of a hybrid 4x5 - 8x10 camera, but I dont know how it will work out.

 

2 months is plenty of time to learn LF and especially if you are going back for more trips. The biggest learning experience will be using it on an extended trip. It might not hurt to take a weekend local trip to get used to managing film, loading/unloading holders, how do I sort and store the exposed sheet film, how do I keep track of my film holders etc etc. 4x5 is much easier to shoot than 8x10 especially with a reflex viewer and does not take so many movements like 8x10. I have gotten to where I can set up a 4x5 shot really quick. 8x10 just takes a lot longer setup per shot due to the shorter dof per shot but the results are outstanding. Also I would spend enough time with the camera and holders to make sure they are not warped, no light leaks etc etc etc. Things you dont want to discover in the field. Oh also calibrate or double check your camera first thing. I cant tell you how many I have bought used that had the GG in backwards, Fresnel in wrong etc etc, and that can lead to OOf shots from the start.

 

If you follow the basics, use simple minimal movements and zero your camera after every shot you will do fine. Also always double check your focus especially at the corners, after setting movements and probably the most important, is to shoot enough before you leave to get into the rhythm of shooting LF. There are a lot of small steps, that are a bit overwhelming at first.

 

<p>Milan,

 

<p>Since you will have the services of a pack animal and some time for practice, I think you will have a lot of fun with an 8x10. Set-up time is little different versus 4x5.

 

<p>My only concern for you now is availability. 8x10 field cameras are in hot demand, and dealers currently have very little inventory. The Wehman 8x10 camera is a nice option, but may not be available until at least March 2006. Tachihara and Shen-Hao are also possibilities at your pricepoint. A used Deardorff might even work since you will not be carrying the camera.

 

<p>If you will be traveling in windy territory, then it may be helpful to have a support brace (connects to one of the tripod lens and presses against one of the camera standards) to support your camera. 8x10 is especially vulnerable to wind. I use a Bogen long lens support arm, which is very help in stabilizing my 8x10, especially with long lenses. Here is one source:

 

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=5545&is=REG&addedTroughType=search">

Bogen/Manfrotto Long Lens Support 3252</a>

 

<p>Good luck!

Christopher Perez, the same fellow who has shared so much excellent lens-testing data, also has great information on his travels to India with MF and LF equipment. He can suggest what to bring and avoid.

 

<p><a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/india/indiaLF.html" target="_blank">Large Format Camera in South Asia</a>

 

<p><a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/india/largeformat.html" target="_blank">Shooting 4x5 Large Format - Southern India</a>.

 

<p>On an related note, the tradition of making pilgrimage to the symbolic center of the world, and circumambulation around it, is a very ancient one. It is an outer ritual, symbolic of an inner process of contemplation. The axis of the world is the spine, and the mountain peak at the top corresponds to the crown of the head. Climbing to the apex, is symbolic of the journey towards higher levels of experience. Any Yogi in India should be able to tell you about these things: they are traditions which carry a deep meaning.

If you're considering shooting 10x8, which I think is a smart idea considering you will have

access to a pack animal, you might check out a Canham jmc 10x8 camera. The camera is

an all-metal field camera that is quite light, and packs up very small. I have had some

reservations about the camera's stiffness, which I have posted about in this forum, but

when it comes down to it, the camera makes sharp images and is pretty tough.

 

Also, learning to shoot 10x8 isn't harder than 5x4. You have a much bigger groundglass

screen to look at, and for a given enlargement size there is actually more margin for error

since the negative is bigger. (Not that you have much margin of error for 10-foot prints,

but still everything is less critical since your enlargement factor is smaller than with 4x5).

My main lens, which I shoot nearly 90 percent of my pictures with, is a 240mm

Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S. It's a great, super sharp lens that allows for some movements,

plenty for landscape use.

 

As I said before though, don't overlook shooting 5x7. It's a great compromise format.

Canham also makes a small folding metal camera in that format.

A useful thread, given I similarly plan to go to Tibet! Given the vast landscapes there, I had been thinking about purchasing a 4x5 field camera for optimum quality -- I currently have a MAMIYA 7 camera, which I acknowledge takes ultra sharp photos.

 

I will probably never go for enlargements bigger than 24"x30".

 

1) Sorry to reiterate the same type of question, but just how much difference is there between an approx 24"x30" image that is taken with a Mamiya 7, vs. taken with a 4x5 large format with a brand-new top lens? According to a West Coast Imaging chart, the image quality off 6x7 is "almost" the same at 24"x30", so I'm assuming the differences are actually really very subtle?

 

2) I think Eric has possibly mentionned a crucial point regarding Milan's choice of camera?? I have explored the South American altiplano many times at an altitude of approx 15,000-17,500, and I speculate that Tibet's environment could well be very similar -- ie, there will be a constant nagging wind that has nothing to stop it as it whips across the flat plains. Acknowledging this wind factor that could cause vibration of a big camera with bellows, is a 8x10 camera (and maybe a 4x5?) a bit of a risk?

 

Many thanks for your feedback

Jon Warwick

 

I currently have a MAMIYA 7 camera, which I acknowledge takes ultra sharp photos. I will probably never go for enlargements bigger than 24"x30".

 

Nice camera. I had one a while back.

 

1) Sorry to reiterate the same type of question, but just how much difference is there between an approx 24"x30" image that is taken with a Mamiya 7, vs. taken with a 4x5 large format with a brand-new top lens? According to a West Coast Imaging chart, the image quality off 6x7 is "almost" the same at 24"x30", so I'm assuming the differences are actually really very subtle?

 

A 4x5 drum scan will be cleaner but 99% of the detail will be there with the M7. You can basically scan the 4x5 at almost half the rez for the same size print so you start out with a cleaner file with less grain. What I did was a 2000 dpi 4x5 scan vs. a M7 6x7 4000 dpi overscanned file resized to match the size of the 4x5.

 

IMO 16x20 is about the break point although if you looked very very close in print you might see a minor 4x5 advantage.

 

Here is the comparison. These are two scans ready to go to a lightjet, resized to 24x30. Feel free to download them and do a crop print. Also this is not my sharpest 4x5 lens but it is a good one.

 

2) I think Eric has possibly mentioned a crucial point regarding Milan's choice of camera?? I have explored the South American altiplano many times at an altitude of approx 15,000-17,500, and I speculate that Tibet's environment could well be very similar -- ie, there will be a constant nagging wind that has nothing to stop it as it whips across the flat plains. Acknowledging this wind factor that could cause vibration of a big camera with bellows, is a 8x10 camera (and maybe a 4x5?) a bit of a risk?

 

That is a good point. I was in the mountains last year, at a fantastic spot, with my 4x5 Sinar and the wind was whipping up to 30-40 mph. Very difficult and 8x10 would have been much worse. In that case I would have been better of using 400 film, and or a MF smaller camera. I did get a few shots though. I had to weight the center pole, and hold the camera down with my hand and wait for a lull. The wind was strong enough that if I had not held the camera down it would have tipped over and that was with a 150mm lens so not a lot of draw.

Milan -

the more I read and the more I see the images you are posting the more I get the feeling that you are just trying to make us all jealous about the landscapes you are going to photograph !

 

Your first image you say gave no idea of the terrain, and yes it lacks the amazing mountain vistas of the latter two. I looked at it assuming it was an example of the kind of place you would have to be carrying your camera and when I finally saw the little man clinging to the rope shimmying across that river I thought "Crikey! I wouldn't want to carry an 8x10 across that!!".

 

When are you off ?

 

Maybe you should try and get someone from Europe or USA to come join you on your trip and then they could buy and bring over a camera for you when they came. I'm looking for somewhere to take pictures and spend a few months right now, and India is certainly a possibility.

 

More stunning mountain landscapes please.

I am off again this February. The lake Manasarovar freezes over in winter. It

will be a sight to behold... the lake is almost a sea. Picture attached. (Kailash

looms in the distance).

 

Thanks for the interest you guys have shown. It is very encouraging. I have

been working on this for three years now and positive feedback suddenly

makes it all worth it!

 

I am a practicing graphic designer - photography is only a hobby. It is where I

burn the money I make!!! Which, I suspect is the case with many of us?

Cheers!

 

What makes the project insane is that the Indian currency is weaker than the

US dollar by a factor of 46. Which means, for me, a 5000$ camera set is 46

times more expensive. Ouch!

 

Lets make great images!

What length lenses were you using (eg, normal, telephoto) for your photos of Mt Gurla and Manasarovar? Is this perspective common for many of the shots you intend to take during your pending trips? ...... I only ask, because it may be interesting to see if the lens length you're mainly targeting influences the advice on which format camera to use.

Hi Jon,

 

I had a 80-200, 2.8 on. I suspect that I shot the Mt Gurla image at nearly 200.

The amazing thing about Tibet is that the atmosphere is so rarified, that there

is sharpness and clarity that carries to the horizon.

 

Quite incredible.

 

Also, this is a vast vast vast flat-land. There is, at times, little in terms of an

obstacle that cuts off your view of the horizon. Deep landscapes are the norm.

As such the Himalayas to the south and the Trans-Himalayan ranges (that run

parallel to Himalayas) to the north are are the only natural barriers. Since

there is nothing to the east and west, mornings and sun downs are

spectacular. The whole place can get bathed in a golden glow till the sun

dissapears below the horizon. Attached is an image of pilgrims approaching

the Thugolo Moanstery (for a night halt) on the second day of their 4-day

circumambulation of the lake.

 

All this backgound for a reason...

Altitude gain is not impossible (as in the case of the Mt Gurla picture),

however, in most cases, one will be on the ground (low point of view), looking

across a deep landscape. In such cases, sometimes, i prefer shooting with a

long lens to cut out the foreground. The foreground can be very unattractive,

and mostly is. Not your typical swaying grass, or carpet of flowers in Tibet.

 

In fact, in the picture I would have liked to cut out some more of the

foreground.<div></div>

Using a longer lens to reduce the amount of foreground also, obviously, reduces the horizonal extent of the scene that appears in the photo.

 

Another way to reduce the amount of foreground is to point the camera upward, but this changes the shape of objects. With buildings or trees, it can be very noticable, leading to "converging verticals".

 

With a large format camera and lenses with excess converge, there is a third way: front rise. You raise the lens on the front standard. Basically the lens projects an image that is larger than the film and you are cropping at the time of taking the film. It might be easier to understand conceptually by thinking of moving the back, which we tend to do with sideways shifts. With vertical movements, we tend to move the lens instead. The shift and rise/fall movements have the advantage (if this is the artistic decision of the photograper) of not causing converging verticals. This type of image control is another reason to use view cameras.

Milan,

 

From photos I've seen of Tibet in guidebooks, where the foreground terrain is basically just miles and miles of dirt/grit, I'd agree that it does seem that a longer lens is required to make the most of some scenes. I'd previously thought about a 4x5 field camera with a 90mm lens, but I think its wide-angle perspective could lead me to photograph huge and rather boring Tibetan dirt foregrounds with (ironically) tiny-looking Himalayan mountains in the background ... not really the images that I'm after! I'm only just starting to look at the possibility of large format, but I think I'm correct in believing that an approx 90mm lens in 35mm format (which I'd think would do quite well to isolate some of the mountains, etc) is the equivalent of approx 300mm in 4x5 -- plus the bellows on the 4x5 camera would need to be extended out? This is making me think again about 4x5, given I'm not sure about how solid the set-up would be the moment the wind starts hitting the bellows when on location somewhere remote and exposed (like Tibet, or the Andean high plains).

I think this photo succeeds so well mainly because of the dirt foreground...

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3358866