Starting Out In Large Format?

<p>Dave, like you, I am a noob when it comes to large format. The past year, I've spent reading and researching the topic, reading and asking questions on the Large Format Photography forum: <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/index.php">http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/index.php</a> As others may have already suggested, I would start there. I would also get your hands on a new/used copy of Steve Simmons "Using the View Camera," and Ansel Adams' "The Camera.<br />Ask lots of questions. In terms of camera choices: Your interest and budget will most likely dictate your choices. If it's landscape you're into, then as many have advised; a wooden field camera such as the Tachihara, Shen Hao, or Chamonix would be worth investigating.<br />I was very tempted to purchase a used Sinar F in excellent condition and offered at a reasonble price. While it would have offered more in terms of accuray and movements than a field camera, I did not deem a monorail camera suitable for me as a first LF camera. But that's me. Your needs are going to be different.<br />I chose to purchase the Chamonix. But that's me. I don't have the camera as yet, it on order and will not arrive until July. In the meantime, I've put together a small lens kit of used lenses I've acquired from KEH, eBay and B&HPhoto. The focal lengths are 90, 135 and 210. From one newbie to another, my first lens suggestion would be a 210mm.<br />Consider your favorite focal lengths in your current format, then detemine LF equivalents. The general rule is to double the focal length of each successive lens. <br />For example: 45mm, 90mm, 180mm, 360mm, etc.<br />For many years, Brooks Institute in Santa Barabara, CA have issued their photograhy students the 210mm lens. There must be a reason.<br />Investigate a LF Workshop or classes given at a community college. I've signed up for one with Glenn Steiner and Per Volquartz even though I don't have a camera. I'm hoping to rent one for the workshop.<br />Again: Don't be afraid to ask questions! -- as the saying goes: "The only dumb question is the question not asked." Seek out and contact LF photographers whose work you admire especially those who may be in your area.<br />One of the photographers on my list was John Sexton. After being intimidated as hell after attempting to read Leslie Strobel's: "View Camera Technique," Sexton's advice to me was get your hands on a copy of Ansel Adam's book The Camera. <br />Best of Luck to you.<br />Cheers!</p>

<p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then when at an actual camera store to hold one; he "discovered" that it was slower to used than his Nikon F3; discovered it did not have a TTL meter; discovered on had to loaded this film magazines; discovered you cannot shoot as quick; discovered that there was "all this stuff" to do; discovered that most places do not have 1 hour 120 film development.<br>

He had sold himself on this ultimate great MF camera thru others recomendations and his GIANT search and exhaustive *LONG* studies; but reality set in when he held one and the honeymoon/dream phase waned. He ended up not getting one. </p>

</blockquote>

</p>

<p>I'm suspect that for everyone like your friend - who, I am quite certain, made the right decision - there's another photographer out there who is glad that he/she took the MF or LF plunge.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I chose to purchase the Chamonix. But that's me. I don't have the camera as yet, it on order and will not arrive until July.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow! I hope you don't have to wait much longer, and I hope that the camera turns out to be what you want when you get it. The important thing is to get the thing IN YOUR HANDS. You can't learn LF technique by reading any more than you can learn to play the piano or dance the waltz by reading about it. Shooting LF is a very tactile experience, a merger of man and machine. Are you renting or using a friend's camera in the meantime?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the meantime, I've put together a small lens kit of used lenses I've acquired from KEH, eBay and B&HPhoto. The focal lengths are 90, 135 and 210. From one newbie to another, my first lens suggestion would be a 210mm.<br />Consider your favorite focal lengths in your current format, then detemine LF equivalents. The general rule is to double the focal length of each successive lens. <br />For example: 45mm, 90mm, 180mm, 360mm, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm a little suspicious of that "rule," but I must congratulate you on putting together a nice collection of lenses with the 90, 135, and 210. Those will prove to be very useful focal lengths. But I don't think you need to buy any MORE lenses until you get your camera and start using it.</p>

<p>I'm curious as to why you recommend the 210 mm as a "first lens?" I'm not disagreeing (although I think it's a bit long to be someone's ONLY lens). I'm just wondering what you based your decision upon if you haven't done much shooting yet.</p>

<p>dave - Consider renting equipment before you buy anything. Just don't use the stinky, dirty dark cloth that comes with the rental camera unless you want to come away with head lice. In a pinch, a clean, dry, dark-colored bath towel will work just fine. And don't forget the loupe, the cable release, or the film holders. You can use your SLR/DSLR as a light meter.</p>

<p>Dan;<br>

RE "I'm curious as to why you recommend the 210 mm as a "first lens?" I'm not disagreeing (although I think it's a bit long to be someone's ONLY lens).".<br>

****A 210mm has historically been a Photo school's 4x5 starter lens.<br>

This goes back say 70+ years!.<br>

A 210mm is what I used to buy for 4x5" kits on starter rail systems back in the 1970's for a schools view camera course.</p>

<p>My neighbor in Detroit went to Brooks in Santa Barbara in the 1950's; he had a 210mm as their token starter lens.<br>

His son went to Brooks in the late 1970's; he had a 210mm on his 4x5 as the starter lens.</p>

<p>Used 4x5 rail cameras in Ventura and SB often have 210mm or 240mm lenses.<br>

****The 210mm is LONG enough that one can teach movements with simple moderate coverage Tessar type 4 element lens.</p>

<p>****It is also short enough to "sort of be a normal lens".!!!!</p>

<p>Long ago a choice was a 210mm F4.5 Xenar; to get the cost down an even slower variant has been used; ie F5.6. in modern times. Even longer 240mm was once used alot too.</p>

<p>Since students are on a budget; it is cheaper to buy a group of 210mm F5.6's than a shorter; "more normal" lens that covers more angle; ie what a pro would use. Thus the poor starving student at a college or correspondence course gets to learn view cameras; movements with a lower cost "starter" lens like a Xenar.</p>

<p>Even longer lenses have been preached as starter 4x5 lenses too for 4x5; ie a 240mm F6.8 Caltar; which covers only 56 degrees wide open and 64 stopped down. (ie non-s series Caltars; which cost less; cover less angle; a 4 element only lens) . Calumet made a shorter 165mm F6.3 Caltar; but this covered 4x5 with only some extra for movements. To "wring out the costs" you use a longer lens; and ven a slower one too so the shutter's size is more standard; ie not too giant.</p>

<p>Again; basic optics means that if one uses a more simple lens like a Triplet or Tessar; you just use a longer one to teach movements.</p>

<p>It "covers more real estate" because one has a longer lens.</p>

<p>You really do not care if the lens is abit long; the PRIME goal is to teach movements and NOT DRIVE UP THE COST.</p>

<p>An old Kodak No 70 8" F7.7 Anastigmat; or 203mm F7.7 Ektar is a more useable lens for 4x5 than a 210mm Tessar/Xenar as far as movements; but the begineer has "more issues" with learning with the slower lens; ie darker ground glass.</p>

<p>Using a longer & simpler lens got/gets the cost down; the lens has enough coverage to teach movements.</p>

<p>For students who actually get into pro work; then then can buy a more normal lens; and one that covers more.</p>

<p>Today there is so much used LF gear on the market that the buying costs are way less than other eras.</p>

<p>Thanks Kelly, I don't think I could have provided a better response.<br>

As far as waiting until July, what can I say; I ordered one in a wood that won't be available to ship until then. <br>

Rentals/Access to LF: I live in California's central valley just south of Sacramento. There's nothing here in terms of LF camera rentals. I'd have to contact Keeble & Shuchat in Palo Alto (aprox. 100 miles away), or check with may be Calumet Photo in San Francisco to see if they would have a rental available.<br>

There is a local photo galley that I've heard may have a 4x5 camera. I'm working that. And I've signed up for a workshop in May. </p>

<p>The 210 is a very useful lens. It's the <em>de facto</em> standard for tabletop shooting (products, still life) as long as you have enough bellows extension for close focus. It can pass as a decent portrait lens if you don't have something longer. It's useful as a short telephoto lens for outdoor subjects.</p>

<p>I wouldn't want my ONLY lens to be a 210 mm (if I could only have ONE it would be the 90 mm wide-angle monster). For my purposes, I find the 180 and the 240 to be more useful, but you really can't go wrong with a sharp 210 in your bag.</p>

<p>The old joke with starter rigs is that a 210 was the standard for tabletop work because thats what students often started with!; ie it is "their normal!"<br>

<br /> In prior eras there were some 8" slow tessar types by Wollensack ; B&J; etc used on 4x5's for school view rigs; to get the cost down some had even truncated shutter ranges too. One had the trio of moderate coverage; slow lens; truncated shutter! A neighbor in 1970's had this 1950's or older rig that had something like 1/150, 1/100, 1/50, 1/20, 1/10 and BULB. The shutters range was sort of like my Kodak Vigilant's; not as much as a Kodak 127mm Ektars.<br>

<br /> Chamonix Chinese view cameras look real cool; 4x5, thru 12x20" ones are hawked on ebay. the 4x5 ones on ebay are a -1 variant; there is a -2 variant folks seem to be waiting for. *** is this the "wait" folks are mentioning above?</p>

<p>Dan; Here in 4H club back in the 1950's a 8 inch was called a 5x7" format lens for say a Tessar or Triplet; ie a lens of moderate coverage. By 5x7 " I mean with an 8 inch lens it was enough; but it was not for movements. Our copy shops old Durst 138S for 5x7" shot and blew back with a 210mm F5.6 Componon.</p>

<p>To me a 210mm or about an 8" is a 5x7 normal; or a longer reach narrower coverage 4x5 lens; ie more for portraits. Or is was that starter lens used on 4x5 rail rigs from mail order Photography courses! :) An 8" lens here on my speed graphic is my 210mm F3.5 fast Xenar; it got first for astronomy stuff; it shoots a nice portrait too. It is lighter than my giant 178mm F2.5 Aero Ektar on my speed; and easier to focus than my 203mm F7.7 Ektar.</p>

<p>For tabletop shots the perspective is from the viewing distance; the focal length then boxes in the arc angle, A 210mm may or may not be ok; depending on how much stuff is on the table!</p>

<p>Here I have found a 210mm to be too long with alot of the stuff I shoot I sure would not want it as my only lens too.</p>

<p><br /> The funny thing is right now I have my 210mm F3.5 Xenar apart; it was built in 1950. I paid 20 bucks for it eons ago; with a speed/crown lens 4x5 mount. Linhof branded a 210mm F3.5 Xenar once too. Some of the shuttered 210mm Xenars for 4x5 rail rigs were as slow as something like F6.1 or F6.3 Caumet might have been the F6.3 variant?</p>

<p>Anyway I have found that 4x5 users who got the common school rail rigs tend to consider 210mm to many times be "their normal" that is what they started on.</p>

<p>Here with me I have used rail and press stuff; a normal to me is more like a 127mm to 150mm lens. And then I got a digital scan back that is just 7x10cm; and thus I am running cropped. A 150mm F9 apo-ronar seems long and a 120mm seems really normal now!</p>

<p>On a Graflex RB 4x5 for portraits; a 8" lens works well.</p>

<p>Although the "lens focal length equivalent" is often discussed in relation to 35mm format, a point rarely mentioned that even the most seasoned 35mm shooter may not yet realize is that LF calls for a shift in approach to seeing. You need not crowd the frame with a nearby subject in the same way to get sufficient detail to read the image or create impact. LF prints tend to be larger, folks tend to linger longer on them, so the subtleties of composition come into play more often. 35mm images often rely on the drama of out-sized perspective distortions of ultra-wide angle views, or the stacking of super-tele lenses-- and you're just not going to replicate some of these looks, or at least not do it as well, in LF. (Smaller formats do have some strong suits of their own).<br>

What I might most enjoy about LF is the relationships between objects seem more normal due to the physically longer focal lengths involved with the format.</p>

<p>If I had to choose just one length lens it would be a 135mm. Most all of the press cameras standardized around this length--for good reason.</p>

<p><strong>Update & Clarification</strong>:<br>

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to change my Chamonix order, so I did. Waiting for a tracking number once the camera ships. Maybe in a week - but I'm guessing.<br>

<strong>On the subject of selection a 210mm lens</strong>: <br>

In my original post, I am "Suggesting" as a "first" lens a 210mm, not the <strong>only</strong> lens.</p>

 

<p>A reputable repair guy recommended that I go with a metal camera. Linhof Tech IV's are pretty reasonable these days. I got mine for 625.00 from a local shop. Solid, compact, stable, smooth mechanics with plenty of movements for landcapes. An inexpensive Calumet monorail is something to consider to learn on, but I do recommend getting to where you want to be asap. A lighter camera hardly seems to matter after you've packed up your lenses, holders, tripod. Tech IV is the way to go. Have fun with it.</p>

<p>Here is what a 210mm F3.5 Xenar in Barrel looks like that is now apart. This went under salt water back in 2005. The pivots on three of the iris blades got stuck in their pivot holes. I could not thing apart for a couple of years. With PB nut blaster I finally got it apart; after 3 years. This lens fits on a speed graphic lens board of mine; it is going to have to be put back with a couple less iris petals. <br /><br /><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/xenar/P3250073210mmF35Xenar.jpg" alt="" />.</p>

<p> </p>