Switching back to Film and 4x5

Hello everyone, I am a newbie to this forum and as well to large format photography. I started out with

35mm film, then spent 5 years trying to get medium format to work for landscape, then went back to

35mm film, then went to digital (full frame 35mm), and now I am about to do what I should have done

10 years ago-learn the art and craft of large format photography. I am a nature photographer with

interests in everything from high magnification imaging of insects, to landscape, to big cats. I have

done it all with everything from bellows with reveresed lenses to heavy artillery for birds and mammals.

However, my landscape work from 35mm and medium format always seemed to be lacking critical

sharpness over the depth I wanted. From 35mm film and digital, the critical detail for landscape was

notably absent at prints larger than 11x17 (as an aside, I do all my own printing on an Epson 7800). I

expected much better performance from full frame digital sensors in this regard, but alas have found

the optics to be the limiting factor in achieving the full potential from these sensors. After picking up a

copy of Jack Dykinga's Large Format Nature Photography, I am now convinced that I should stop

wasting my time and money on digital and invest in a system that will not be obsolete every 18 months

and at the same time provide the resolution and depth that only 4x5 can.

 

So here are a few questions for the experienced users on this forum. I am leaning towards an Ebony

SV45Ti. As a beginner, I realize this is more camera than I will initially need, however I want something

that I can grow into as opposed to having to replace it when I outgrow it. I envision using roll film

holders as well. I would be interested to hear from users of this camera about your experiences, good

and bad.

 

For lenses, I have found it difficult to find really good reviews which compare the Nikkor, Schneider, and

Rodenstock optics (this never seems to be a problem in the 35mm world). I am suspecting this is

because at this level, they are all comparable in terms of resolution and contrast. I am leaning towards

a 75mm/110mm/210mm combination to start with as these approximate my most used focal lengths

in the 35mm world for landscape photography. Is this a reasonable assumption, or am I missing

something fundamental?

 

Finally, scanning. I currently have a Nikon 5000 scanner and was thinking of moving up to the Nikon

9000, which would cover the roll film. But what to use for 4x5? I really don't want to go with flat bed

scanners-I've tried them in the past and the Nikon scanners were far superior. I guess another option

is to just skip the Nikon 9000 and go with an Imacon 646? I'd really appreciate advice from experienced

users on scanning 4x5 film. I suspect that once I see the quality of these scans I will be also upgrading

the Epson 7800 to the 9800......seems like it never ends.

This has been said 100 times - do not start LF with an expensive camera because you will not know if it works for you. LF is kind of different - some people like wooden cameras, folders, metal cameras, mono rails, etc. etc. And every single LF photographer went through an iteration to find the right camera for her/him. Now you might be the only exception to that rule, but I highly doubt it. Get a Shen Hao, a Tachihara or a used camera in that same price range. The beauty of those cameras is that once you figured out what you really need/want in a LF camera youcan sell it with very little loss of money - if any at all.

 

As to lenses - all modern lenses are very, very similar and it really doesn't matter which one you chose. 75 is pretty wide in LF, but that's up to you. Most folks tend to go the 90-150-210 route.

 

For 4x5 scanning you are stuck with flatbed scanners. The new Epson V750 seems to get good reviews, so do the Microtek scanners.

I agree with what Juergen says, and only add that I don't understand photographers who have to make a "switch" from MF to LF, film to digital, or Canon to Nikon. They all co-exist on retail shelves, why can't they co-exist in your camera bag? After 20+ years of doing 4x5 work, I still use the same Crown Graphic I started with (plus others). The point is to use equipment as tools. I highly recommend really learning a piece of equipment and its capabilities, then adding another piece when you find you need more. This is particularly true with LF.

Focal lengths don't translate exactly, for several reasons. The aspect ratios of 135 and

4x5 are different, you may find your style of photography changing, and with camera

movements you can setup some photographs differently than you can with a camera that

can only focus. That said, your selection of lenses sounds very reasonable. By far, my my

used 4x5 lenses are 110 and 180 mm. The next two in my usage are 72 and 450 mm. I

used only a 180 mm for several years.

 

One difference from other formats is that LF lenses don't have a proprietary mount, so if

you

decide sometime in the future to change cameras, even to change camera brands, you

don't have to change your lenses, you just have to move them to new lensboards (or

perhaps not if the new camera uses the same lensboards). This is a reason not to obsess

about the first LF camera.

P.S. I own lenses from all of the "big four" LF lens manufacturers and currently regularly use

lenses from three of them. They all make/made very high quality lenses, and each has/had

some unique product in their lineup. The past tense is because Nikon has exited the LF lens

business; you left Fuji off of you lens list.

I'm puzzled as to why you plan on using a roll film back if you've already concluded that medium format did not give you the results you were wanting.

FWIW -- I came from 30 years of 35mm film, primarily landscape and nature photography as a serious amateur -- never attempted to sell my work. Had same concerns, almost went to MF (used to occaisionally rent) and went straigt to digital (Nikon D2x, not FF). 4 months ago after two years of heavy shooting with the D2x, which I love, had the same epiphany and final went to 4x5 after mulling it for several years.

 

Bought a Shen Hao as the best price and features combination and have been very happy with it. Bought Schnieder Super Symar XL 80, 110 (still on back order, but should get it soon), Rodenstock 135 Sironar N, and Nikkor W 180. Last two used from KEH. Very pleased with everything. Should note that I probably wouldn't have bought the 135 if the 110 wasn't on back order and when it comes may sell the 135 for a 150. I can see possibly moving to a different camera someday, the Shen Hao more than meets my needs.

 

Scanning is a different can of worms. I have,and am good with,, an Epson 4870 -- can get good printable 35mm scans up to 11x14. My 4x5s scan very nicely, but are no better in resolution than my D2x shots, though the film colors and tonality are better. (I'm going to try to post a JPEG of an 80mm landscape shot scanned with the Epson 4870 and post processed in PS. May not work as it's my first try with a picture posting here). I'm in the process of getting some drum scans to compare and deciding if I want to bother with a new scanner, or be happy with what I have up to about 16x20s, and drum scan the few exceptional ones beyond that.

 

Scanning is definitely the limiting factor. My research over the last few months has also pointed me to the Epson V750 or the Microtek 1800, but in the end, I think they'd only be a marginal improvement over my existing scanner, so I'm still testing.

 

Truthfully, I like the process and results with 4x5, and agree that it's a more contemplative approach. For damn sure, it's making me a better photographer. Will not give up my Digital however. When the next generaton Nikon comes out with a FF sensor, I may well abandon 4x5 IF I can get comparable resolution results (especially if a wide tilt lens is finally produced). However, there is something about the 4x5 that has sunk its hooks into me.

 

Scanning is the limiting factor to me. Frankly if there was a $1,000 to $2,0000 scanning option available to me that would be significantly better than the Epson/Microtek range, I might never switch. I'm still thinking about a used Imacon, if I could find one. A previous poster in another thread I lost track of, has mentioned using the smaller Imacon that supposedly doesn't take 4x5 and somehow scanning 4x5s in two passes and stitching in computer. Not having or having seen one of these, I'm still trying to figure how the tranny fits in the carrier that's not designed for it, but that might be an option as the smaller Imacons are sometimes available used.

 

As others have said, the camera is the least important factor, and I second the Shen Hao or Tachi approach as a first -- you won't be missing anything important. Invest in the glass-- it's all interchangeable (as long as you're not trying to change formats from 4x5 to 8x10 and even a few lens can do this, and there's a pretty good used market for both buying and selling. This forum can point you to most any resource you need.

 

Good luck and report back<div></div>

Hello Jeff,

 

A little over a year ago I also jumped into 4x5 from 35mm film (I still shoot 35mm). It took me 8 months of trolling forums and researching. I had to learn new brand names and lingo. I do mostly landscape. I also don't have time to fix things or dink around with used equipment, I have other hobbies and a job. So I looked for new. In the end I bought a Ebony RW45 and 3 lenses, 72mm 210mm and 400mm for this approximates how I shoot with 35mm. I am completely happy. I bought the Ebony field style camera since I can fold it up and put it in my Lowepro with the 3 lenses, 10 film holders, a light meter, loupe, dark cloth, and filter set. Excellent for hiking. I don't require the extensive movements of a rail camera, I use mostly the front tilt, swing and on occasion back tilt. It is easy to use, after a test run in the living room, I first used it at night in 20 degrees with some heavy gloves. Also, I purchased everything at Badger Graphics, incredibly helpful people, most notably Jeff (I hope I got that right).

As for scanning, I scan on a flatbed to see how things look and if I want to do any manipulations and make a print to see how I like a shot. If a particular shot really trips my trigger I go to my local shop and he scans it on his Imacon. You have to scan a lot, a lot of film to justify an Imacon.

Reading your post you are about where I was near the end of the 8 months research.

I've said this over and over. Might as well say it again. You won't use LF the same way you use 35mm. You won't stick the camera to your eye and compose with your feet. Amoung other things, this will effect your lens choices; you'll find that the lenses you like for LF won't just be translations of lenses you used for 35mm. And no, I don't expect you to believe me. But at least you've been warned.

 

Since you are looking for maximum sharpness and image quality, hold off on buying a scanner right away. Pick a LF photograph you are happy with and want to print, then send this film out for scans on your target scanners, including getting it drum scanned by more than one drum scanning service (they vary, especially for negatives). Make prints from them all and compare the prints side by side under the same lighting. This exercise will give you a clue as to scanning direction.

 

Note: You have to compare prints -- comparing the scans only in Photoshop won't tell you enough. Make the prints. Also note also that used drum scanners are considerably cheaper to buy than new or used Imacons. Finally note that there are other considerations besides buying price.

Jeff,

<p>I went into LF some years ago (before I became a PN member) and bought a cheap 4x5 camera, just to see if I would like it. After three years I was pretty sure I would stay with LF.

<p>From my 6x9 times I had three cheap lenses left (90-180-300). It took me 5 years of buying, trying and selling lenses (12 different ones) to figure out "my" lens selection (47-80-150-300-450). Tastes are very different, but most LF people agree that a beginner should start with one lens (150 - 210 or so) to get familiar with camera movements etc. After a while you'll know better which focal lenghts you want.

<p>I love wooden field cameras, so I started with a Shen-Hao.

Two years ago I switched to an EbonySV45Ti with Universal bellows, mainly because I wanted a camera which could handle lenses from 47 to 450mm without changing bellows. The many movements of the Ebony I use only little. Apart from the limited bellows extension, the Shen-Hao was more than sufficient for my needs.

 

<p>1) Buy a cheap, good camera (maybe you love it and stay with it!) as well as one or two lenses and try.

<br>2) Select lenses by image circle, size, filter thread, weight etc., not by brand name. You can't go wrong with Fuji, Schneider, Rodenstock or Nikon LF lenses.

<br>3) Shoot, learn, and enjoy. You've chosen the most fun part of photography.

Just to second what many others here have said. Spend money on the lens, not the camera. As you get used to working in LF, you can figure out what camera is right for you. Try to get a used LF camera cheaply. You should probably end up spending more on the lens than on the camera -- at least at first. You never know -- you might find that you want to go bigger and bigger!

The camera is just a box between the lens and film. I like the super graphic, all alum, full front movements, rotating back, rangefinder etc. You can mount a cambo back on one and use a cambo reflex viewer. Thats how I have mine set up. Its weighs 5.25# complete with 1 lens, camera back and relfex viewer.

 

As far as lenses all of the modern coated lenses are very close, with a few standouts. The limiting factor with LF is more diffraction and film flatness. The Nikon 90mm lenses are about tops in the 90mm arena. The G-Clarons are very sharp, especially the 210 and 240mm lenses. My 210 and 240 were much sharper than my G-Claron 150 WO, but stopped down they were about the same.

 

A typ 3 lens set would be 90mm, 150mm (or 135) and 240 (or 210)

 

You will use you middle lens 90% of the time. Also w/ LF you shoot a bit on the wide side. Personally I think a 135 lens is a little more useful than 150, but I stuck with a 150mm lens.

 

If you think of the width of film as a comparison the factor is .25x, so a 150mm lens will be about like a 37.5mm lens and a 90mm lens will be about like a 22.5mm lens in 135 format.

 

It will feel less wide due to the 4x5 aspect, but I figure mine like that because more people crop 2x3 format to 4x5 format than visa versa.

 

Over all I think a 90,150/135,210 is plenty enough, but just start off with the middle lens. Add a super wide later if you want.I had a 58mm lens for a while, but it was too wide for me.

 

As far as scanners you are screwed. Its either flatbed, imacon, or a drum scanner. There are a few older ones also like the sprintscan 45 ultra.

 

I have a drum scanner. Its huge but it is superb, and slow. Cost me 1G. Imacon is just too pricey for me. Microtek has a new flatbed coming out and I hope its a winner. Its the M1. YOu may want to watch for it.<div></div>

"I am a nature photographer with interests in everything from high magnification imaging of insects, to landscape, to big cats."

 

LF isn't the ideal format for insects or big cats (assuming both are alive) so I wouldn't sell your other systems just yet.

 

The Ebony SVTi is a very nice camera, I owned it (and the identical, except for weight and wood, Ebony SVTe as well) for about two years. However, I had about seven years of LF experience with four other LF cameras when I bought them and thought I knew exactly what I wanted (I was wrong, I didn't find exactly what I wanted until I subsequently sold them and bought my Master Technika but that's just a personal preference thing).

 

What is it about the Ebony SVTi that appeals to you as compared with other simpler, less expensive cameras, i.e. how did you come up with that particular camera? For someone who will be using the camera primarily for landscapes the SVTi has more movements than you need and isn't particularly better in any respect for that type of work (and many other kinds of work) than a $600 Tachihara or Shen Hao, the one exception being the longer bellows, which might be useful if your landscape work includes things kind of close as opposed to vistas and that sort of stuff.

 

I had no major complaints about the two Ebonys except that they weren't as solid and precise as the metal camera I had been using, plus the three wheel focusing system. With lenses of a certain length, probaby roughly the 135mm to 240mm range, and with certain scenes, you begin focusing with one wheel then at a certain point before you've finished focusing that wheel just starts spinning freely in your hand and you have to switch off to another wheel to finish focusing. It obviously isn't physically difficult to do but I just found it irritating to be in the middle of focusing and all of a sudden have the focusing wheel start spinning freely in my hand while nothing happened.

 

I used a 6x7 system along with my 4x5 systems for many years. It was my experience, borne out by the experience of others, that there was no difference in the technical quality of the photographs made from the two systems until the print size got to at least 16x20. So I wonder why you've found medium format deficient and whether you're going to see the kind of improvement in your landscapes from 4x5 that you seem to be expecting. I also use a Canon 5D digital camera with two L lenses and find no consistent, significant difference in technical quality of prints from that system up to about 13x17 as compared to prints of the same size from scanned 4x5 negatives (4x5 scanned with an Epson 4990 scanner and printed on an Epson 2200 printer).

 

Grand and profound summary: it isn't the equipment, it's the person using the equipment.

Cheers for all the feedback folks. Certainly a lot to think about.

 

Brian: I will be keeping my 1V-HS, 1Ds and will be adding the DIII for all of my wildlife

dedicated trips as well as high magnification macro work. Concering MF, the problem I

always had with the RZ system was getting enough DOF (not to mention the DOF scales

were off by two f-stops), as well as getting the perspective control I wanted. Both DOF

and perspective control are more readily accomplished with camera movements as

everyone here appreciates. Why Ebony? Quality mainly, versatility in focal length

selection, less than a Linhof Master Technika, hell, less than a Canon 5D!!! I've always

bought top of the line (or as close as the wallet will allow) and have never regretted it. I

plan to own this camera a long long time, as I do my 1-series Canon's. As well, while the

main purpose for the 4x5 will be landscape photography, I am going to give architecture a

crack since I will finally have the right tool to make this a worthwhile endevour.

 

I am very surprised to hear about the quality comparison between the 5D and 4x5. Are

you shooting chromes on the 4x5? I suspect the shortcomings of the 4x5 result is due to

the scanner. I suspect your results would be quite different using an Imacon 646. I'm

curious as to what L-lenses you are using. In my experience, the Canon wide angle L-

zooms are nothing to write home about. They are not optimized for f-16. They are

designed for PJ work between f-2.8 and 5.6. Diffraction is a killer on these optics.

 

I agree it's the person behind the camera, which is why I can't wait to get under the

focussing cloth.<div></div>

You are absolutely correct in choosing an Ebony for your first 4x5. The model you mentioned is their least expensive full feature camera, and should suit you fine. Why waste your time with a Tachihara as someone suggested? You have already gone thru a big list of equipment without getting the results you want. Go straight for the best and get to work making up for lost time. My only question is why not go right for 5x7 or 8x10, which, as a quality freak, you will end up shooting with anyway? 4x5 is a quality compromise. They are more popular than the larger sizes because of weight and cost. But they are not nearly as good to the developed eye. Every time you sell a system and buy another you lose money. By the way, in the spirit of full disclosure I should mention that I have one of the world's largest Ebony dealerships. But I sell the cameras because they are the best. Ebony is so expensive to manufacture, because of the titanium, that both the factory and the dealers have to work on very small markups. Personally I have owned the following cameras, as far as I can remember: Calumet, Wista, Raja, Deardorff (several), Wisner(5), Linhof, Plaubel (3), Ebony (5-6), Lotus, Sinar F, Walker, Zone Vl, Crown Graphic (2), and probably several others. Linhof is the best metal camera and Ebony the best wooden one. You can find my email by clicking my name. Please ask if you have any more questions.

Buying a large format camera is a lot different than buying a DSLR, though. Unless you have unlimited funds or specific professional needs, there is almost no reason to buy a 4x5 body new. The used market abounds with great deals. Remember that a view camera body is basically a dark tube. The lens and the film mean so much more to the image outcome. If I were you I'd invest money in good glass (which can also be gotten used for great prices and great condition) and look for good used deals on folding 4x5 cameras. I recently saw a Wista Zone VI 4x5 go for $500. Tachihara and Shen-Hao make really nice field cameras that go for around that price used as well.

"Are you shooting chromes on the 4x5?"

 

No, I use negative film.

 

"I suspect the shortcomings of the 4x5 result is due to the scanner. I suspect your results would be quite different using an Imacon 646."

 

I'm not aware of any shortcomings with my 4x5. My comparisons of technical quality range from my darkroom prints of enlarged 4x5 negatives and contact prints of 8x10 negatives over a period of about 20 years to scans made with an Imacon while attending George deWolfe's digital printing workshop to scans made with several different high-level scanners while attending Ted Harris' scanning workshop to my own scans on the 4990 and an earlier Heidelberg to drum scans from a lab. The 4990 with Silverfast Ai does a very good job with scans of 4x5 film and prints in the general 11x14 range, the differences between it and higher end scanners with that combination are so minimal as to be almost non-existant in my experience.

 

"I'm curious as to what L-lenses you are using. In my experience, the Canon wide angle L- zooms are nothing to write home about. They are not optimized for f-16. They are designed for PJ work between f-2.8 and 5.6. Diffraction is a killer on these optics."

 

I use the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f4 IS. I've never heard that any L lens is designed for photo journalism work. While I don't know the history of the L series of lenses, it seems odd that Canon would design a $1400 L lens for photo-journalists whose work is printed on news print.

 

You asked for opinions and I gave you mine as did quite a few other people who have been down the road you're now going. You've received almost unanimous advice that spending a lot of money on your first LF camera isn't the best idea in the world. If you want to ignore that advice by all means do so.

I don't think camera/lens matters, only suggestion is go with field camera, rather than monorail, unless you want to carry 20lbs of eqpt. what matters is learning to meter with a hand held meter (spot/incident) & understand and using the zone system. Get a copy of the Negative by ansel adams or google for zone system. If you can 'visualise' on zone system, understand basics of front tilt, you are good to go.

 

Camera & lens - not relevant I use a Wista Cherry 4x5 (I think its has a DX in it... not sure), and I have a fujinion 150mm lens, 12 film holders, cable release, soligor 1deg spot, generic cable release, Fuji velvia/astia/Tmax320 for film.

 

As far as scanning goes, you should read this article is pretty good material http://www.scantips.com/ Software that you will use to scan is very important, I use vuescan, does a good job. Scan resolution & bits depends on what you want to do with the scanned image. Web site should give you some useful info. I use a Epson 4990 photo, it does a good job for web images, 8x10 prints, but not anything more IMHO. You are better of getting it done at a pro shop for anything else (IMHO).

I started LF in the late 80's, and bought what I could afford at that time, and one lens, have both today. Thank God Al Gored hadn't come along and invented the internet to slow me down. At that time it was pretty simple, read some books, went to galleries and looked at lf photos, got a calumet catalog, and bought the cam and lens. Re scanning, etc. I can't imagine not printing in a wet darkroom....nothing like printing a 4x5 negative. I like a lot of formats, 4x5, mf, 35mm both fd and eos, and digital. I can't imagine having to choose, I can't choose only blondes or brunettes, why should i have to choose a format.

I dont really understand why you would move to LF because of quality issues, then use a low quality film scanner. If you want the highest quality, just print it in the darkroom (or use the highest quality scanner if you really cant print).

Howdy Jeff,

While I have been shooting 4x5 for about 4 years, I still consider myself very, very much new to the format and a novice to photography in general. So, I have paid attention to what others have posted here in response to your query as a way of continuing my learning and checking their advice against my own experience.

 

One thing that has become clear to me is that my images are only as good as the weakest link in my system. Of course, that begins with my personal vision, then my comfort level with my camera (I still fight it some), the chrome or negative I take, the scanning, the monitor I use to digitize the image, and finally the printer/ink/paper trinity.

 

If money is truly not an object, I don't see a downside in going for what camera you think you might really be most comfortable with. I went through two others that I chose for serious financial considerations before I arrived at my Toho, and will be buying an Ebony or Arca Swiss when I can afford it. Ebonys seem to hold their value well and to sell easily and I don't think you would be out all that much if you later decided that it wasn't "the one." I think advice to try before you buy is sound, and comparing several camera types first could help either confirm your original preference or cause you to consider other factors in your purchase.

 

I agree with Bruce and others who have suggested that the focal lengths you use to shoot 4x5 might not translate directly from your medium format experience. But, I didn't make that discovery for myself until well after I moved from my Pentax 67 and I don't think you can know until you try different focal lengths for awhile.

 

Personally, my weakest link has been in the scanning. There is a significant difference between the scans I get from my old Epson 3200 and the drum scans made by West Coast Imaging. I have recently purchased an Epson 750 but have had little chance to use it, and I don't consider it a replacement for the drum scans I get for images that I consider worth the investment. (AT about $80, drum scans are expensive.) As a seriously non-technical type, I have found the learning curve associated with scanning to be a difficult one. You may have already mastered the process with your Nikon 5000.

 

Like many others, I use modern lenses from a variety of manufacturers - Nikkor, Fuji, Rodenstock - and like them all. Here is a link to Kerry Thalmann's lens review site, the most comprehensive one I have found. http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/

 

4x5 is a journey that I have loved and continue to.

All the best on your journey.

Don

ps - I love your Quineault Rainforest image, it has the kind of "simple complexity" that I strive for.