New large format cameras?

It seems that I bought some things from Freestyle, and so am now on their mailing list.

Today I get mail from them about new large format (4x5 and 8x10) cameras.

I have no connection to them, and am just passing it along, mostly for the surprise!

Large Format Luxury Cameras are Here!

(I don't have any LF cameras, unless you count those using 122 film.)

Freestyle is fantastic, but I suspect now that I will never get around to doing my own 8x10 negatives.

All the same, if you need anything exotic in the way of still surviving film, they are a good place to look first

They are a long-serving source:

Yes, Freestyle was my favorite when I was younger.

I did a lot of photography for 7th and 8th grade yearbook on Freestyle film.

They used to have 100 foot rolls for $5, I think shipping included.

It seems strange, that a venerable company like Gandolfi and Sons, who made traditional wood and brass LF cameras since 1885, were struggling for business almost at the very height of film use. Yet now, when regular users of LF worldwide probably wouldn't fill a scout hut, we have a new Johnny-come-lately company trying to sell LF cameras.

Really?

Like there aren't enough LF cameras lying unused, plus the few remaining established manufacturers, to supply world demand several times over.

Hmmm. I think I might put up a kickstarter project making bespoke spirit-and-flint powered cigarette lighters. That's sure to find a thriving market!

(snip)

 

Hmmm. I think I might put up a kickstarter project making bespoke spirit-and-flint powered cigarette lighters. That's sure to find a thriving market!

Vacuum tube amplifiers are popular for high-end stereo use.

Some say they like the sound better.

As vaping gets more popular, I suspect that you will find those who want to buy your lighters,

just to remember the way it used to be.

As vaping gets more popular, I suspect that you will find those who want to buy your lighters,

just to remember the way it used to be.

Only if all the Zippos and Ronsons already out there suddenly disintegrate.

The point is that there are already more than enough under-utilised LF cameras in the world, without wasting more of our planet's dwindling resources making more of them - just for someone's vanity project.

Vacuum tube amplifiers are popular for high-end stereo use.

Only with tin-eared people with more money than sense!

I always think that this comment is also applicable to large format... :p

(But I have to admit that -like some "audiophiles"-, nothing amuses me more than shooting with a large format camera... ).

If you're not swayed by big names, then 5x4 gear can be got quite cheaply these days. Especially in comparison with the silly money being asked for some 'lesser format' gear.

Plus you can get away with cheap lenses like old Kodak anastigmats in unstylish ancient Deckel-Compur shutters. The IQ will still put a Leitz Summicron to shame.

The film, of course, is expensive, but offset by the £££/$$$/€€€s saved by not buying the latest digital camera plus wide aperture LD-IF-VR-Aspherical lens (which is too complex to assemble without introducing some de-centring). And remembering that a humble f/5.6 lens on 5"x4" gives you the same shallow depth-of-field as an f/2 lens on the 24x36mm format.

I do have a camera, and a few rolls of 122 film. Close enough to 4x5 for me.

Ahh, but I can walk to my fridge and lay hands on about 150 sheets of reasonably fresh 5x4 film.

How many rolls of 122 do you have Glen, and how old is it?

Plus 5x4 film still has processing holders made for it - without sawing up a plastic spiral and jamming a bit of dowel between the two halves.:p

So far, I have only tray developed 122 film.

When I first started, my grandfather gave me film clips and explained the use of

two of them, and trays of chemicals, for film developing. But I already had a tank

(not yet used) by them. I still have the film clips, though.

I believe, though, that was usually done in the orthochromatic days with

a red safelight. (Which I also still have.) Tray developing roll film in the

dark is interesting, though.

But if 122 film stayed around longer, then tanks for it would have stayed, too.

An additional benefit of 4x5 and larger is that contact prints are often astonishingly superb compared to what comes out of an enlarger.

Film cost, availability, and having to load film holders, etc. did in my 4x5 work.

How I miss Type 52 Polaroid 4x5, too

It seems strange, that a venerable company like Gandolfi and Sons, who made traditional wood and brass LF cameras since 1885, were struggling for business almost at the very height of film use. Yet now, when regular users of LF worldwide probably wouldn't fill a scout hut, we have a new Johnny-come-lately company trying to sell LF cameras.

 

(snip)

From another thread, it seems that NPS (National Park Service) requires 5x7 negatives

for some uses.

https://www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/PhotoGuidelines.pdf

If you are photographing some historical site or artifact, it might be that

you don't want to use a historical camera to do it.

It seems that they require an archival life of 500 years, using polyester

(no acetate allowed) based film. I suspect that there are no digital formats

that one can declare a 500 year lifetime.

(They do digitize them, and it seems that we can download them, but the film

is the archival store.)

Extracted from the NPS guidelines:

"Camera: A large-format view camera with ample movement for perspective correction must be used. Acceptable film formats are 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. The 5x7 size has long been preferred due to its ability to capture context and structures both long and tall."

From the above, it appears the preferred choice of 5"x7" is more about aspect ratio than frame area. With 5x7 offering a 1.4:1 aspect ratio as opposed to the 1.26:1 (margins excluded) of 5x4 and the near exact 5:4 ratio of 10"x8". But have they never heard of cropping? Because 5x4 needs only a 4mm top and bottom trim to reach the 'desired' 1.4:1 ratio, while a 10"x7" frame is surely better than 5"x7"?

And 500 years archival lifetime? Yeah, right. Who's going to be around that long to check?

It's time these people joined the 21st century.

Only if all the Zippos and Ronsons already out there suddenly disintegrate.

 

The point is that there are already more than enough under-utilised LF cameras in the world, without wasting more of our planet's dwindling resources making more of them - just for someone's vanity project.

 

Only with tin-eared people with more money than sense!

No actually they do sound better, in my opinion and I have a $900 2012 Super CD player. I decided to give Vinyl another chance this year(actually last year) and could not be happier. Something about the dynamic range ?

I decided to give Vinyl another chance this year(actually last year) and could not be happier. Something about the dynamic range ?

All technical and objective tests show that CDs are superior to vinyl in every respect. Especially dynamic range, since the noise floor of vinyl is many dB higher than that of the 'pitch black' silence obtainable on a CD.

My own personal experience is that the bass on vinyl is a little deeper (using an MC pickup cartridge and comparing the same album on CD) but this might well be down to imperfections in the RIAA correction of my amplifier, or the mixdown used for the CD version. And it's nothing that a tweak of a graphic equaliser couldn't fix.

Vinyl has lower dynamic range. For some people, that might sound better.

Especially in a noisy environment (running car), it is better.

Vinyl has lower dynamic range. For some people, that might sound better.

Especially in a noisy environment (running car), it is better.

You have a vinyl turntable in your car!? Now that I gotta see.

You have a vinyl turntable in your car!? Now that I gotta see.

As well as I know, in the early days (before tape) they did that.

But recordings specifically made for cars, traditionally tape, but could be CD,

can be put through a compressor to reduce dynamic range. Mostly that

is for classical, as most rock has little dynamic range.

You have a vinyl turntable in your car!? Now that I gotta see.

Our 57 Desoto convertible had an under dash 16rpm record player in it. Records were the size of a 45 but with a small hole. They were played upside down with the tone arm coming up to the record.

Our 57 Desoto convertible had an under dash 16rpm record player in it. Records were the size of a 45 but with a small hole. They were played upside down with the tone arm coming up to the record.

I do remember home players with the (I believe) 16 2/3 RPM, and might have known that was for cars.

All technical and objective tests show that CDs are superior to vinyl in every respect. Especially dynamic range, since the noise floor of vinyl is many dB higher than that of the 'pitch black' silence obtainable on a CD.

 

My own personal experience is that the bass on vinyl is a little deeper (using an MC pickup cartridge and comparing the same album on CD) but this might well be down to imperfections in the RIAA correction of my amplifier, or the mixdown used for the CD version. And it's nothing that a tweak of a graphic equalizer couldn't fix.

Some(mostly all ) of my CD's sounded a little too bright. After a while I experienced "Listener's fatigue" especially the ones that were poorly mixed. Even some of my best CD's were still a little too bright for my tastes. So a couple of years ago, I bought a 12 channel equalizer to tone down the brightness. This helped substantially, I even thought I was in Hi-Fi heaven...

When I got my turntable last year, equipped with a $450 Cartridge partly paid for with the COVID-19 Stimulus money, I noticed that the sound coming from Vinyl records was not as sharp as my CD's, but the DEPTH was amazing ! The violins were in the back, the piano was to the left side, the lead singer was in the front, the guitars were front and slightly to the right and no listener's fatigue ! Even my best CD's sounded FLAT in comparison, although their sound was a little sharper.

Since my equalizer was muffling the brightness of my CD's, I decided to switch the settings on my equalizer back to the default just to see how my vinyl records would sound. That's when my new turntable with a '1959 Mile Davis(Columbia-records )' cut, blew my $900 CD player right out of the water !! I kid you not.

Unfortunately, while I was tinkering with the wiring the other day, I manged to blow out the left channel on my Receiver. Now I got to get it repaired. In any case, under the right conditions Vinyl will beat-out CD's, but everything has to be just right... .

In any case, under the right conditions Vinyl will beat-out CD's....

Those conditions might involve imbibing a quantity of nice wine or whisky before listening.

I'm willing to regretfully accept that my old ears just aren't as discerning as they were 40 or 50 years ago - now featuring a built in low-pass filter - but the clicks, pops and faffing about with vinyl I definitely find more fatiguing than listening to a CD. If all the stuff I have on vinyl could be instantly and costlessly transferred to a digital format my Thorens turntable and SME arm would probably never see use again.

As for a more defined sound field: The dB channel-separation figures for any cartridge versus CD would tend to contradict such a finding.