making the move

I echo what Alan just said. If you had to read literature during three months for

the (IMHO small and tiny) step from "35mm" to MF then you will be simply lost

in the LF world because LF is soooo much different than cameras that contain

a flapping mirror. Guess how many years of reading would that come to and

from your postings I just don't get the feeling that you have enough patience to

do that. This is not personal or negative, it's my impression that I get from your

postings. Sorry but I think you will never get the sharpnes you desire and you

will never be satisfied with any photographic system, period. BUT IF you want

to start into LF then I would also recomend what has been said allready: Get a

cheap Cambo + a 110mm or better a 150mm / 210 mm lens which is

multicoated (but not necessarely need to be multi; single is way enough). I

also recommend that you look carefully at pictures which have been made

with a LF camera. Do you like them? Is sharpness OK? Think as if you were a

stupid but demanding customer to which you later would want to sell the

pictures. Check around if the "LF-system" can deliver what you want from it.

Don't jump into it blindely. Just look at lots of photos which have been made

with a LF camera - then you KNOW if this system is good enough for you. If

you think YES, then you can't get around of reading some stuff BUT for you it

is not lost time SINCE you know now that LF gives you the sharpness and

quality you desire. This procedure can save you quite a lot of (otherwise)

"unnecessary" time.

 

Hope that helps in making your mind up.

One final thought from me that echoes the previous two posts. Even more

important than the vast differences in the technical aspects of working with LF

v. the smaller formats is the even vaster difference in philosophical approach.

Some of the earlier posts have hit on it in passing but it is a huge difference.

 

With your 35mm or your 645 you �shoot pictures� you literally compose the

scene and push the button if you are operating in full program mode or at the

very worst check the led readouts in your finder and make an adjustment or

two and then push the button. To make sure you capture what you are after

you frequently expose anywhere from 3 frames to an entire roll.

 

With LF you need to think and plan and then think and plan some more and

that is before you even head out to the field or into the studio to set up your

camera. The time required to setup and the complexity of the variables

demands a contemplative approach. All of this is especially true when you are

working in a studio (as you say you will be) IF you are going to take

advantage of all the larger format has to offer you. I have been known to think

about complex still lifes or product shots for days before walking into the

studio to set them up and then taking hours getting the lighting, depth of field,

angle of the shot, plane of focus, etc. just as I want it before exposing a single

piece of film. When I do expose that piece of film it is a Polaroid and after

looking at it I will frequently spend a lot more time making more adjustments.

 

Bottom line, we are talking about �making images� not about �shooting

pictures.� Is this for you? That is not an idle question, it is not for many people

and there are many many very fine photographers who neither work this way

nor work in this format.

ok thanks i think i have the right amount of answers to decide what i want to try. i will try large format, i am a lens snob, so what. thanks

I would suggest: 1. Book on View Cameras - Either Jim Stone's or Steve Simmons, available in paperback, covers the basics, at most big city bookstores, or on-line- Amazon. 2. Camera - an old Calumet 4x5 monorail camera - the successor of the old Kodak Master View, typically available on ebay or reputable dealer (Midwest Photo Exchange is very good, check Shutterbug magazine or search the internet), $175 to $300. Look for one with a 17" to 20" rail, good bellows, and generally overall good condition. 3. Lens - Kodak 203 f 7.7 Ektar in Flash Sumermatic shutter, frequently on ebay, $200 to $300. 4. Film Holders - 4 to start, also availble on ebay, or dealer. 5. Dark cloth - any fabric shop, 4'x4' black cloth. 5. Light meter - incident/reflective/flash capibilities, large selection available new and used. I have a used Gossen Luna Pro SBC, which is a system meter, and allows for most anything you would want to do with a meter. 6. Cable release - most, if not all, photo shops. 8. Tripod, with 3-way head (nice to have levels) - needs to be sturdier than the typical non-pro 35mm type - available new or used, again ebay is a good source, $100 - $200. 8. Film - Kodak is a good choice. If you can get some out dated film to work through the "bonehead" mistakes of learning the system, should save you a little money.

The above package should cost in $600 to $1000 range, give or take.

Your 645 should be a good choice for hand held work, and less expensive than 6x6 or 6x7. Moderate telephoto lens (90mm or so)and a moderate wide (55mm or so) should handle most of your needs.

have you used the spot attachment on that sbc? does it have cine scales too?

ian how do you like your burke and james

 

im looking at some of the mid-range price systems like the cambo, calumet, toyocx/c, sinar a1. i'm wondering what the big difference is between why someone would choose one system so much over another. i'm figuring all that's important for studio work is an easily reversible back, bright ground glass, free front and back movements, and a long rail. am i right, am i wrong, how would you base your decision on one of these systems.

 

i also have gotten the lens choices down to approximately 305mm claron-g, rodenstock apo sironar-s, and schneider apo symmar. i'm not sure what focal lengths would be most appropriate for me. i'd like a somewhat normal lens. i don't like much beyond mid-range telephoto or mid-range wide except for very eceptional purposes. i do like close focusing and being able to fill the frame.

Oh boy... asking me for advice is like asking the other lost kid where the school bus is. Almost everyone on the Large Format forum has more experience than me... <p>

My Burke and James is a fine camera for how I shoot. Personally I like taking landscape photos with it, have planned to take nature closeups (but haven't) and I plan to try it for some location fashion/portrait work. All things that (at least for the way I work) require folding the camera up into a little box and stuffing it in a backpack. <p>

If, as you say, you'll be using this in the studio it would be a poor choice. The limited front movements, lack of rear movements and kludgy controls are not features that will make it your friend in the studio. <p>

 

My advice? talk to Jim Galli. He's got that cambo (an excellent starter cam) and based on my personal experience is good to deal with. There are also many other vendors that provide large format gear. Jim just happens to be the only one I've personally dealt with and who also spends a lot of time here answering questions. <p>

Lenses... Buy one (1) good one in a length that compares to what you normally work with. Add more lenses later as you need them. <p>

That's it, that's all. I read a LOT before I picked up a LF cam. You've just gotten some of it, plus my limited experience, in a digested format. <p>

Now... get reading or whip out that credit card and get buying. <p>

I don't want to see your face here again until you've bought a camera and either need to brag about how excellent it is or whine about something dumb you did to screw up a shot. :) <p>

Cheers,

GOT MY FIRST LENS. that's all...

Joshua, pardon me for joining the party late, but I was out of town. Welcome to LF! If peerless optics are what you want, you'll find it here. What pushed me "over" to LF was that lenses for my hassy were too expensive, even used. There are sleeper lenses, usually designed for other purposes, that will knock your socks off when grafted to a LF camera(I'm thinking Konicas, Fax Nikkors, etc...here) Jim Galli is a great resource on these matters(actually, some lenses can be, IMHO, too sharp for portraits.This might sound strange to an optics connesseur like yourself.) Of course, then you'll need some kind of shutter, preferable an accurate one, and a machinist who can put it all together. There are few around who can do this kind of painstaking work. S.K.Grimes is the best known and certainly one of the fastest turn arounds. The camera itself is probably the least critical component. Either the bellows leak or they don't. Either the bellows extend far enough or they don't. Either the settings can be locked down securely or they can't. Either the ground glass registers with the film plane or it dosen't. Either it has the moves or it doesn't. Out side of this, there is no way to tell if your photo was taken with an Ebony or a Burke & James. LF cameras are a matter of personal preference and the only way to determin what you want(and more importantly, what you need) is to get one(any one) and start taking pictures. You'll soon discover what features are important to you. The important thing to remember is to have fun! That level of fun is what LF provides that other formats don't(my opinion!) Good Luck!

Zeiss? You mean Goerz, don't you?

bought a cambo scx and 150mm sironar-n. would like to get a 210mm apo-sironar-s but im waiting to see a used one around. will probably wind up upgrading the 150mm at some point but i wanted a cheap way to test out the different focal lengths as i need to get used to the format more. also got a box of astia to play around with, a film i'm not that fond of, but i got a good deal on ebay until i can pick up something better.

 

care to go into more detail on which or know where i can find examples of these sleeper lenses. if i like the format that much, i may search for a secondary camera with a focal plane shutter for these kind of lenses, since i don't really want to pay $400-500 to have a $50 lens mounted.

 

i do see the g-clarons that look pretty nice, but they can't compete with the apo-sironar-s. maybe if i can get the barrel cheap and a shutter cheap and figure out how to do it myself

 

i did not like the look at all from fuji lenses, looks like dirt. i did not like the schneider apo-symmar either.

<<i did not like the look at all from fuji lenses, looks like dirt.>>

 

Could you explain what you mean? I have a Fuji 240 A and it's very sharp and all the tests and opinions of others on other Fuji lenses I have seen show the same.....Dirt? hmmmmmm.

every example i see of a fuji lens i see and have used looks bad.

 

i maintain of all the large format lenses i've seen so far the apo sironar s is the clear winner

Well I don't know which Fuji lenses your looking at. Anyway, I'm with you on the APO Sironar S. I have the 135 and the Sironar S's are most likely the sharpest normal lenses around.

i used the gsw690iii and things looked unimaginably terrible. i expected miles better. i have also seen examples of fuji 300c. i swear i saw another, can't remember which lens or where. all of them look muddy with bad contrast & poor color rendition