Undervalued 4x5

There are a lot of cameras and lenses available today for literally next to

nothing. This isn't because they are 'junk' or of low quality, but because

they were manufactured in massive quantities and they last so long.

 

I've always been more than happy to snap up what I considered to be undervalued

camera gear. Right now I have 3 4x5 cameras, none of which cost more than

$55. And while I do have a convertible 215/360 Caltar-S that I paid about $125

for, most of my lenses have also been under $50 as well.

 

I will concede that just about all modern gear is probably at least twice as

good as I what I buy; I'd like to point out that the modern gear is also twice

as good as what Ansel Adams and Edward Weston used as well. I'm not saying

that my equipment parallels theirs, I'm pointing out that it's the photographer

that makes the great photograph, not the equipment being used.

 

For those of us who are limited by their budgets, paying 10 or 20 times as much

for something that might be 2 times as good, doesn't make a whole lot of sense

either.

 

I'll attach a photograph, that while being a lousy composition of an

unremarkable subject; is still representative of a $50 Calumet CC-401 with a

$45 Ilex 6.5 inch lens. Provia in a regular holder.<div></div>

Close up of the sign.<div></div>

We're on the same page, picking and choosing our cameras the same way, and paying similar prices.

 

Don't the 4x5 negs just glow?

 

Currently looking for something in an affordable & portable 5x7 because I've fallen in love with contact prints, thanks to the 4x5 press camera that was my intro to LF.

 

Love that mill. Last time I was there was April 2006, and a heavy storm had passed through the night before. My 11 y/o son and I were on the motorcycle, and as I watched 3 kayakers came down the creek and over the big drops downstream of the mill. Very cool.

If you have seen AA`s originals you would see they don`t match modern equipment. Absolutely first class and very nice for what what he had, but not like modern multicoated glass.

Attached is a pair of photos, from 4x5 B&J press camera. First is a detail of engine on my own bike, then a detail from that photo.<div></div>

Detail from center of previous photo....<div></div>

I hung up photog for about 5 years, returning in 2004 after the birth of my son. When I returned I was surprised at the inroads digital had made as well as the collapse of high dollar film camera gear market. It really was a new world photog speaking.

 

I've taken advantage by buying myself a couple Leica MP cameras, various Leica lenses, and recently a Linhof 4x5 camera. You've can't get this gear for $50 but its far more affordable than ever was.

 

I like to shoot portraits and you can't get much better than 4x5. If I shot with a Hasselblad I'd still have to take meter readings and set up a tripod (for the good stuff). Heck, in that case I might as well set up the 4x5 and have some real fun.

Hello Jeff and Doug,

The 215 f 4.8 S Caltar made by Ilex Optical is one of the greatest lenses ever designed. It was good enough that Rodenstock begged us to let them private label all their wide field LF lenses (they were Sironars), they didnn't want any competition like that. That lens was designed as a single convertible and was very good.

 

If you wish, email me and I'll send information on lots of used large format lenses, including sources, and any problems that might show up.

 

Doug, the B&J press was a good camera, I owned one for many years and gave it away to a youngster to train as a photographer. The B&J press was very difficult to make and so finally, George Drucker, the owner of B&J for 40 or so years finally threw the tooling out into the Chicago river about 2:00 in the morning swearing that he'd never have to put up with that camera again. I know the story because I was VP of B&J and wanted to build the camera again, since I knew George, I asked him about it and he told be what happened. This was about 15 years before I became part of B&J.

 

Lynn

The Calumet bodies have always been bargains. But they aren't perfect for all things. Their limited movements, and yawing, would drive an architectural or a commercial studio shooter insane.

Also I think you might be selling "early and mid 20th century" gear short. I don't think AA was handicapped by hardware? He shot B&W with single coated glass. And he used the best lenses he could afford. Plus the films and papers back then were rich with deep blacks from the "chunks" of silver in them.

"I don't think AA was handicapped by hardware? He shot B&W with single coated glass. And he used the best lenses he could afford."

<P>Actually, much of his very best work was done with uncoated glass.

Let the fools dump their great old stuff to go digital. They are sacrificing lushness for speed. I am glad to be able to get $15,000 worth of camera and accessories for not even $2,000.

 

Keith

Japanese pre WWII 1/2 plate camera with home-made 4x5 and 5x7 backs. Fuji Fujinon 150mm f6.3 on a Seiko. Total: $300.00<div></div>

The new large format cameras are wonderfully precise, but I also have an old Graphic View

4x5 camera and Zeiss Tessar lens that works just fine too. This image/print made with the

Graphic View was recently selected for the Alaska Rarefied Light photography exhibit....I'm

finding that I enjoy shooting large format film (whether with the old Graphic or a new Ebony

45SU) more than digital SLR these days. Not that one is necessarily any better than the other,

per se, just a matter of personal preference for me.

 

Gary Benson

Eagle River, Alaska<div></div>

"I will concede that just about all modern gear is probably at least twice as good as I what I buy; I'd like to point out that the modern gear is also twice as good as what Ansel Adams and Edward Weston used as well."

 

You're partially right, IMO. Weston and Adams used some low end stuff to be sure, including Weston's $5 rapid rectilinear that he did much of his 8x10 work with. He also mentions a 21 cm (210mm?) Zeiss Tessar that he was very happy with, and the 19" cell of the Turner Reich with which he was not so happy. None of the glass mentioned above is considered especially good or have cult followings today.

 

However, I've found that most older glass is quite good compared to modern offerings if properly cleaned and not damaged. Very few people are going to pay Adam Dau or John van Stelton $125 to clean a 60 year old 210mm Xenar that wll be worth the same $75 it was before cleaning. The old glass is generally lower in contrast than current offerings, which can be a good thing. I have an uncoated 180mm Berlin Dagor with crystal clear glass that I like to shoot with Velvia. Tames the contrast quite well.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

Hi to Gary Benson; nice to see you here.

 

Doug Grosjean

"Let the fools dump their great old stuff to go digital. They are sacrificing lushness for speed. I am glad to be able to get $15,000 worth of camera and accessories for not even $2,000. :" Keith

 

I agree with that statement, and it happens all the time. But photographers are not stupid, their not going to get rid of it for $50, unless it is borderline rubbish (usable, but not desired). It may do the job, but so does a $500 car...but how many of us want it.You won't find a Pentax 6x7 going for $50, and at that price I would hold unto myself. If your already saving a bundle, why get so cheap that you lose the pleasure of owning fine euipment. There is a practical side, not too pricey, but not too cheap either.

Doug Grosjean... What PPI did you scan the valve at, please?

5x7 Korona View with 7 1/2" Wollensak Raptar f4.5 on an Alphax shutter. The entire kit including six wooden and four modern plastic filmholders, an extra lensboard, and a couple loose pieces of hardware again, $300.00.

Enlargement of the porch...

$75.00 4x5 Anniversary Speed Graphic with $35.00 127mm Kodak Ektar f4.7 on a Graphic shutter. The shot was hand-held, focused with the Kalart rangefinder.

Not saying anyone is stupid...just a bit (a lot?) lazy now that high quality digital is here. I was specifically referring to a common price for a lightly used Sinar with all sorts of goodies attached.

 

Keith

Okay here is my response.

I bought two old japanese cameras. One half plate camera and one full plate camera. I am currently getting them converted by an expert woodworker who is a good friend. They will both have 5x7 and 4x5 backs bought from the auction site and will both have graflok backs for 6x9. And the beauty of it all is the half plate is about 3.5 pounds! You can see the japanese workmanship even way back when they were made. ?1920s. No jap scrap here. Also when I handle them I think of the craftsmen that built them wow they are all dead I am sure. Also with the 5x7 backs, I am converting them to use my Canham 6x17 back. Although it is a little more investment than the previous posters, I think I paid about $80 for the full plate. I will have some excellent equipment. Oh I forgot, I paid $1000 each for two of my lenses with center filters so I guess I am out of the low budget club. :-)

Tom Burke wrote:

"What PPI did you scan the valve at, please?"

 

I don't recall exactly. Scanning 4x5 negs is currently a real PITA for me, as I have only a 1.9" wide backlit portion of my scanner. I have to scan in 3 pieces, and then merge them together. Hence the uncertainty of exact spec.

 

Typical workflow:

I *probably* scanned the 3 pieces at 1200 DPI, pieced them together in Photoshop to make one nice big pic. Then took one copy of it and downsized for posting to the Net. Then took another copy of the same original file, and cropped it to show just the valve.

 

HTH!

 

Better scanner is on my wish list for now.

Hi

<P>

clearly this is a mainly USA list, but LF isn't loosing ground in Japan. Scanners like the epson range of flatbeds are making digital work from 4x5's even easier and cheaper than it ever was. Personally I only contact print black and white or scan colour with my 4x5 and the results just make me smile.

<P>

but I'm sure glad that the studios are dumping all that gear, as it makes it all so much more accessible to me.

<P>

I'm sure that this isn't lost on companies like Ebony as they're still making fine cameras.

<P>

Images like <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/6459563" target="_blank">this one</A> look as nice contact printed, as they do scanned with an epson and printed on a durst epsilon to 1 meter high.

<P>

yep ... definately an undervalued mis understood format :-)<div></div>

Doug,

 

Good to see you here too! :-) Re scanners for your 4x5.....I always had good results from my trusty old Epson 2450, but finally upgraded to a Epson V750 recently and gave the 2450 to a friend. The V750 does capture more of the detail and dynamic range of the BW negatives than the 2450 and I've gotten better prints recently with re-scanned negatives. You've got more patience than I would have, stiching those scans together...but the results look great. Do you still have that airhead GS?

 

Gary