Dream 4x5 Camera with Three Lenses: You Vote

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a Hasselblad shooter

who's getting the bug for 4x5 again. I bought a Linhof Tech IV two

days ago, and already the B.S. Factor is showing up. I am

doubting that I bought the right camera for real-world, relatively

hassle-free shooting.<P>

 

So the question is: If you wanted ONE camera, and three lenses,

and one of them was damned wide, like a 45 or 47, and you

didn't want to mess with recessed lensboards, and all the

shooting was outside on location, shooting people AND

landscape, and weight or cost didn't matter, what would you

pick?<P>

 

It could be a field camera, or a non-folder, or even a monorail,

but the situation is: You're not babying the camera; you're not

worshipping the camera; you don't care too about cosmetics of

the camera; you just want to get in the truck, get to the location,

set up quickly, and start shooting. You don't care a lot about

extreme tilts or movements, and did I say that you HATE

recessed lensboards, and cameras with non-intuitive knobs and

functions. You want to just reach out and know that you're

messing with the focus knob, and you don't have to have tiny

fingers to find some obscure knob to rise and fall.<P>

 

Sorry for the ramble. I'm stressed-out about this whole thing, and

I've only owned the camera for two days.<P>

 

A bonus question, for even more prize money:<P>

 

If your final goal was to scan these BW negs from the 4x5 on an

Imacon, and output them to a large Epson 9600, at

approximately 35" wide image area, would you think you'd see

MUCH quality difference between a fine grain TMAX100-type film

in the Hasselblad, and a neg from a 4x5 camera? (In other

words, should I just send this whole damn package back?)<P>

 

Gentlemen, Start Your Engines. I'll be back in 24 hours to check

on your Progress.<P>

 

Thank you very much in advance,<P>

 

Mark Tucker<BR>

Photographer<BR>

Nashville<BR>

http://marktucker.com/<BR>

Ebony 45SU. It doesn't fold so it sets up really quickly. I have the

23S and it's a very fast working camera. The 45SU would work

even quicker with the asymmetric tilts and swings. It takes a

47mm SA XL with NO recessed lensboard. If you want to shoot

down to a 35mm, you can but I'm afraid you'd have to get a

recessed lensboard at that point. It can take a 500mm lens, but

that's probably a tele lens with the back extender since the max

bellows draw is 365mm.

 

As far as lenses go... For the super wide I'd probably go with the

previously mentioned 47XL if you really need that wide of a lens.

For a normal lens I'd probably do the 150mm f/5.6 Apo Sironar S.

And for a long lens maybe the 300mm f/9 Nikkor M.

 

Good luck with your selections. Here's the Ebony website: http://

www.ebonycamera.com or for the 45SU go here: http://

www.ebonycamera.com/cam/main.45SU.html

Oh, yeah... I go to that Ebony site and get all teary-eyed. I like to

make a night out of it -- I put on some nice music, light a candle,

pour a glass of red, and then I just go to that site and read about

the cameras and drool.<P>

 

Honestly, they do seem nice. <P>

 

I think my point is -- Time Is Short. There's no time left to be

spending time on badly-designed cameras. I can't quite put it

into words, when you just find a camera that's second-nature.

The Fuji 680III was that for me, but it was just too much of a

beast to carry around, to only get a 6x8cm negative out of it. For

that weight and bulk, I want 4x5 quality. But the knobs were large,

they were in the perfect place, the viewfinder was bright, and the

lenses were razor sharp. I'm looking for that kind of relationship

with a 4x5 now.<P>

 

Jeez... This is starting to sound like a Personal Ad.<P>

 

-Mark Tucker

If you pursue the Ebony route and want superwideangle lenses without recessed boards, consider the Ebony models with a 'W'. They are limited for focal lengths but the reduced bellows extension pays off at the wide end.

 

For my 38XL, I recently swapped a recessed board for a regular board on my SW45, and my (photographic) life has improved... no more frustration trying to cock the recessed shutter using a pencil because it is sitting behind a centre filter and Lee recessed adaptor ring.

 

For landscape work on the SW45 I suspect you really only need a recessed board for a 35mm lens. Rise movement is a little tighter with the regular board, but there is about 2cm of movement available. I only use the 38XL with 6x9 and 6x12 (now that's wide) backs.

...of course with the 'W' models you lose the asymmetric tilt advantage but it wasn't important to me...I'm more of an <i>f/5J</i> -- actually a cheatsheet of <i>arcsin (f/J)</i> -- person.

Maybe a Arca-Swiss FC for ease of use....

 

Most cameras, for super wide lens need a bag bellows which can be a pain in the field also. The Ebony non-folders might be a best bet for wide angle ease of use. Your just not going to go real long then. Even the top of the line non-folder 45SU only has 365mm of bellows. Also ALL LF cameras are TRADE OFFS not a one, even the best are going to be best in all areas. The Technika for example is one of the most beloved cameras around. Granted you might not love it, but it's not a BAD camera or a poor design.

For a small lightweight easy-to-pack and carry 4x5, for available accessories, for great support, for a nice selection of lenses in helical mounts, for a graflock back in case you wanted to do 6x12 or 6x9 or 6x7, and last but not least, SPEED of shooting:

 

Cambo Wide

 

My ultimate lens choices would probably end up more than 3 but since that's what you proposed, here's what I would start with:

 

58mmXL SA, 72mmXL SA(or 75mm SA), and 100mm APo-Symmar. Later, I'd add a 150 Apo-Symmar, and possibly a 47mmXL SA.

 

I sometimes tote mine in a small handbag to downtown Chicago to do some candid street photography during lunch. Loaded with TMAX 400 speed film, speed and focus are preset and I can literally just point'n'shoot and get big negs.

OH and for lens: Pick your SA XL for the short end. 47, 58?

A SS 110XL and maybe a Fuji 240 A.

Ed,<P>

 

If you thought that I meant the Technika was a bad camera, then I

apologize and I misspoke.<P>

 

I had a Tech III for a long time, and loved it. I messed up one day

and sold it. I saw the 2000 at PhotoEast and fell in love, but not

$3800 worth of love. So I settled on the IV. <P>

 

I think I'm more bummed about the lenses I bought. The Linhof

90 6.8 is in that recessed board, and the 240 TeleArton doesn't

have the button to let you open the lens to focus it. It forces you to

go to "T" like the old days. I guess I got the older generation of

the 240s.<P>

 

It just brought back the memories of trying to shoot portraits of

people, and the camera begins to occupy too much of your brain.

I think that's why I bailed from 4x5. The operation of the camera

was just sucking too much energy in exchange for the additional

quality level of the bigger neg. I guess this would be true with any

4x5, so that's why I'm looking for the best-designed camera I can

find. <P>

 

I even considered the Wide GowlandFlex, with matching 210s for

people, because you can focus and recompose all the way til the

second of exposure. But it too has a long list of limitations.<P>

 

I also have this GREAT funky lens; a Komura 152 f2.8 (!), which

is so gorgeous when shot wide open at 2.8; tons of great falloff.

It's in a Copal3. So if I had that lens, plus an ultrawide, plus a

240, I think I'd be set. <P>

 

I usually shoot always wide open, and I love shallow depth, so

I'm always on the lookout for fast view lenses to go with this

Komura. APO it ain't, but that's not what you're going for with that

lens.<P>

 

I'm just thinking that the whole drop-bed thing with the TechIV

would get old, and there's got to be a better knob system on

another camera. <P>

 

-Mark

Hi Mark,

 

I just looked over your website and all I can say is WOW and don't give up your Hasselblad!!! I take back all the things I was thinking when I read your complaints about using your Tech. ;-)Really really nice work. You have such a feel for that square aspect ratio. Your work has an energy I don't think you'll match with LF.

Send it back.

Mark,

 

A quick trip to your web site indicates that I probably should not be posting on

the same thread as you... Anyhow, here goes...

 

Why do you want a 4x5? What's your real intent? Do you have an image in-

mind that you cannot achieve with your hassy?

 

I can't answer your specific question about print quality of digitized images

from 2 1/4 vs. 4x5. I offer this... After working my way through college by

working in a professional (Chicago area) photo lab, I saw hundreds of pro-

quality shots a day. Unless you need the perspective control of a 4x5, you will

get all the image quality you need using 6x7 or 6x9.

 

I see your dilema though... Most of your shots look good as square images.

Your problem (I'm guessing) is that you want more real-estate across the film

surface so, you can make better enlargements. Even with the biggest MF

frame size, you're limited to 6cm on one side. Helluva problem. If you change

your style to rectangular images, you can get some mileage out of 6x7 or

(preferrably) 6x9. If you still want to display your images as square, then you'll

have to find the right 4x5 equipment to suit your needs.

 

Hope I made sense.

 

Be well.

 

Ray C.

Mark,

 

As a newbie in 4x5, I can't address your camera or lens questions but I CAN help with the Imacon scanning part.

 

I shoot a Hassy and I scan with an Imacon 848 - typically at 16bits. I just checked a recent Hassy shot and a 4x5 that someone else shot and I scanned (and kept a copy because the shot was of me!). Some data for you:

 

Both were scanned at the maximum resolution for the Imacon 848 for that format. I don't recall right now but I believe it's 3200 ppi for 6x6cm and 2040 ppi for 4x5". (If you need me to check, I can start up the scanner and do that). The resulting file sizes (again, 16 bit per channel) were:

-- approx. 420MB for the 4x5

-- approx. 290MB for the 6x6

 

If I go into Photoshop at use the Image size function to resize (but uncheck the resample checkbox) and set the ppi to 304.8 (res 12 for the Lightjet), it tells me I get a print size of about 24"x24" for the hassy shot and about 25"x32" for the 4"x5" - without resampling.

 

So if you want to keep a square format and chop off 1" of the neg from the 4x5, the result is about the same size print due to lower scanning resolution on the Imacon for the larger neg. Of course, you can make it bigger by letting Photoshop (or the Lightjet) interpolate.

 

All my stuff is color so I can't speak for B&W but I do notice better color and what seems to be better detail when blowing up the 4x5 than the 6x6. Of course, that could be lots of other factors since they were taken with different lighting, different lenses, different photographers, etc...

 

Hope that helps.

Take a look at the Arca Swiss Metric with Orbix, with asymmetrical focusing. I regard it preferable to the Ebony, because its all metal frame is more durable. It might be more stable than the TK45S because it has standards on both sides, rather than L-shaped standards. I do not have a problem with camera stability or shake, so I do not regard this as a serious or recurring problem with the TK45S, at least when tripod is solid, wind is minimal (light breeze), or exposures short (a fraction of a second). In a strong breeze, any 4 x 5 camera will shake nmore than a medium format camera. Unlike the Arca Swiss, the Ebony requires only one bellows for wide angles and long focal length--a savings of about $400-500, and a saving of space in the camera bag. Wood can crack or split if the camera is dropped. The asymmetrical focusing eliminates a lot of the hassle of focusing so that you can readily capture near and far. Take a look at any largew format photography book by David Muench (available in most bookstores)and you weill see how wel he sues near and far clompositions with wide angle lenses. You said weight and cost were not a factor of importance. The Ebony costs 2-3x the Arca Swiss F Compact, without Orbix, depending upon configuration, and about 1.5x the AC Metric with Orbix. Get the non-standard Arca Swiss 40 cm rail. You can carry the camera in a Lowe Trek AW camera backpack with the rail fully extended. That means all you have to do is mount the camera on the tripod and you are ready to focus--no unfolding of the camera. The standard Arca Swiss lens board is humongous so get the TK lensboard adapter and have your lenses mounted in the much smaller TK 45 lensboard (which eases storage of the lenses in your camara bag or pack). The knobs on all on the right side and can be tightened or finely adjusted even while wearing gloves. If weight and cost were a factor, I think the TK45S is a better value. The camera center axis lens tilt makes focusing for near and far much easier than base tilt. The TK45S has rear tilt (I am unsure about the Arca Swiss). The available lens rise is tremendous -- all you will ever need. Independent levers on T45S control lens tilt and lens rise-- a very convenient feature. I do not know whether the Arca Swiss adjustments are independent. The TK45S is favored for architectural photography as well as landscape work. For price comparison, check Badger Graphic Sales (Wisconsin), BH PHoto, and Robert White (UK). With press view cameras, like yours, the bed has to be tilted downwards to avoid vignetting of the imaging. Monorail cameras like the TK45S and Arca Swiss ease use of wide angle lenses. They permit longer extensions than cameras like yours. Their main disadvantage is the bellows lacls a clam shell to protect the bellows from abrasion. Your camera can close up into a clam shell configuration, protecting the bellows. Yoru camera does not require a bag bellows, but its estension is limited to 360 mm.

Arca-Swiss FC 4x5 or Canham DLC. With the Canham you'll need a

recessed board for the 47mm; with the Arca-Swiss you won't, but you will

need a bag bellows. Both cameras are very straight forward and non fussy to

use. I have also heard good things about the Walker Titan cameras but have

yet to see one. I agree that Linhof's and Ebony's -- while extremely fine, well

made cameras -- are too fussy in usage for me.<P>

Lenses: 58mm XL, 110mm XL Super Symmar, 210mm f/5.6 Nikkor W.<P>

Have you shot with a 47mm on a 4x5? The angle of view along the long side

of the format is just about the same as the 13mm Nikkor on a Nikon 35mm

SLR body.

To Michael Fox,<P>

 

You are a lucky man to have the 848. I lusted after it at

PhotoEast. I "adapted" my Photo scanner to scan 4x5 last night; I

simply cut the 645/67 negative carrier; I removed the divider

between the two format sizes with a blade, and INSTANTLY I had

a 4x5 film scanner. You must scan in two passes and then

reassemble. But it saved me thirteen grand...<P>

 

My question extended: if taken out to my epson 9600, after being

scanned on an Imacon, how would the two formats compared at

35" wide prints on the wall?<P>

 

I'm sure you'd see the difference in the 4x5, but would it offset the

amount of cost, in dollars and pounds, to maintain two camera

systems? I kinda doubt it...<P>

 

Mark Tucker

I agree with Ed Candland. That is a wonderful site. I especially love "Ruth and Sadie on the Beach". Jock Sturges, eat your heart out.

All very nice work.

Hah. You're the lucky man to have a 9600! I could probably afford the printer but not the bigger house to put it in!

 

Short answer is I don't KNOW (for a fact) because I haven't tried it. But I can surmise the following:

 

The Imacon 6x6 scan gives me about 7100 pixels square. The 4x5 scan is about 7500 x 9500 (rough numbers). So, if you're using 8x10 aspect ratio cropping, there's definitely more data to enlarge without interpolation. If you want square, however, the difference is less than 10% (7500 vs. 7100). So, given a particular ppi setting for your output, the 4x5 will be somewhat sharper (no interpolation). And, even with interpolation, it will still be somewhat sharper since you started with more data so Photoshop (or the printer) has to make up less.

 

Regarding ppi: I print larger prints to the Lightjet which is optimized for 304.8ppi. But my print size is no larger that 16x20 so far, so I can't really comment on what a 35" output would look like. I have an Epson 5500 that I use for proofing and smaller prints and I get excellent results at the 304.8 resolution. I've never been able to get Epson to tell me what the max input resolution is (the resolution beyond which it doesn't matter) so I just leave the file set to 304.8 since it's going to the Lightjet later anyway. I have not experimented with lower resolutions.

 

You may be able to print at something lower like 200-205ppi (which would get your hassy 6x6 shot up to about 35") and still get good results. Again, it's something for you to try. Regardless, even if you have to interpolate upwards to 35", you're asking Photoshop to make up fewer pixels with 4x5 cropped to square and way fewer pixels with 4x5 uncropped. That's got to result in sharper pictures.

 

I bears repeating that I sense smoother tonality and greater sharpnes as I zoom in on the screen with the 4x5 than with the 6x6 shot but this is just my personal feeling and I have no objective way to measure it. I presume this is due to the fact that there are more particles in a given area of the film vs. the scanner resolution in 4x5 than in 6x6. So with the bigger neg., the scanner "sees" less grain, more continuous tonality. Again, my own speculation.

 

BTW, the way you're scanning (neat trick!), you may actually get MUCH more information in your scans than in mine since your scanner is probably using a higher ppi setting since it thinks you're using the medium format holder. (I don't remember the resolutions on the Photo model). Therefore, you'd see a HUGE gain in clarity because you could easily blow the shot up to 35" without any interpolation.

 

Oh, and I didn't say it before... your work is beautiful - quite moving.

i have used the technikas for many years and like them very

much. no camera is quicker to set up in the field (no squaring of

standards, infinity stops, clicks at zero on all movements, etc.),

none is easier to use, and none is more rugged. it is also a very

precise camera, allowing fine adjustment and repeatability. as

for recessed lens boards, what's the big deal?? i don't get it.

they are easy to use with the quick release doohickey. now,

wides are a problem on the tech iv. even with the mandatory

wide angle focusing device, you can only go down to 55mm (the

2000 will take a 35mm). indeed, wide angle work beyond 65mm

is really best down with a specialized wa camera or a rail. but

from 65 to 400-450, the techs are stupendous. try using yours

handheld with the rf. you will be surprised at how easily it

handles -- and very pleased with the quality of your shots.

needless to say, it takes more than two days to get used to an

entirely new camera system. i can' t say whether the control

layout is "intuitive." i have always found it very straightforward. in

the end, however, once you learn how to work the camera, it

won't matter how obvious the functions are anyway. do i really

need the gearshift pattern permanently engraved on my shifter

knob??? anyway, give your tech a chance. it is one of the few

mechanical devices ever made that is nearly perfectly designed

for its intended use. and try some grafmatic holders. another

mechanical marvel.

went through the same just recently

 

ended up with

1. Ebony 45s

2. SS 80XL

3. Symmar 150

 

want a 58XL to round things off. that would make three.

 

btw - echo the sentiment of other on your site. nice stuff

I probably have my dream camera in a Classic-F Arca. And, I only paid $450 at a swap meet prior to the notariety that Arca gained in the last few years. Since that purchase, I've added the leather W.A. bellows and the 700mm long bellows.

 

I'm also intrigued by the Technikardan-S 4x5 that would include a Graflok International back. But, the Arca has broader application. It'll be interesting to see the new Arca recently announced.

 

To pick three lenses, I would say the 110 S.A. X.L., an Apo-Symmar 180mm, and the 360 Schneider-Dagor, MC. For closeups, I would want to add a 240mm lens, perhaps an Apo-Ronar. And of course, I would want a complete complement of Schneider lenses for 6x9, definitely all of the most recent design.

 

Now, as to my darkroom . . .

I don`t talk about the cameras because it is to different for every guy!

But lenses recommends are: 55mm APO Grandagon aharper then the Schneider 47XL and 58 XL, 90mm f4.5 Nikkor or Grandagon-N, 210mm Apo Symmar!

Good luck.

Ebony 45SU, 47XL, 80XL, 110XL. Oh and a 6x12 roll film back!

Michael Fox,

 

Epson advises optimum printing at 360dpi. Second choices

should be in increments of that; next would be 240, then possibly

180 in extreme examples. Although I've never seen great quality

reductions at other resolutions, especially if your scan is nice

and clean.

 

I scan everything out of the Imacon at 360. And yes, I do think I'm

getting a little bonus by rigging my PhotoScanner (3200dpi

default) the way I did. I'm getting the medformat numbers out of

large format!

 

Mark Tucker

Thank you All. Very Much.

 

I feel much more resolved about all this now. (Maybe it was the

eight hours sleep...)

 

I also must put in a good word for Robert White in England. I

have written to him several times in research for the right pick of

camera, and he's just an overall nice guy. (He says he has an

open box 45SU right now for a slight reduction in price, but it's

still $3650 for the body alone. Yikes). But I support his business

practices; good prices and personal service.

 

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/

 

In the end, I'll probably stick with this body (TechIV), and take all

the money I'm saving on not buying an Ebony, and buy some

killer sharp lenses.

 

Roger Michel makes some good points, (even better received by

me, because he's not making me write large checks for new

bodies). But he's right; take a breath and give it some time.

 

I appreciate everyone's contribution, especially on

recommendations on lenses.

 

Thank you.

 

Mark Tucker

 

http://marktucker.com/