suggestions for 8x10" kit?

[l._duijvesteijn]

Hey everybody,

 

there seems to be alot of people on the forum that are quite informed about available

8x10 options, so here goes:

 

i'm selling my technika IV, and moving up to 8x10. what i'm looking for is preferrably a

field camera-design, i would really like shift on the rear standard and sufficient bellows

draw for the lens. i'll be shooting portraits, head/shoulders and allmost head-to-toe.

important is the angle of view. in 6x6 i use a 180/250 mm. next to that a standard lens

would come in handy. weight is not really an issue. ebony is out of my reach, and i prefer

buying a used lens. by the way i'm in europe so any suggestions on good LF suppliers are

welcome!

 

any suggestions? tachihara triple extension? two lenses or a convertible?

 

thanks for the help!

[l._duijvesteijn]

one thing i forgot! I don't want to be too far away from my subject when i'm shooting (6

-10ft would be perfect). this is the reason that i don't know wich lens to get..

[will_legge]

The equivalent to the 180mm 6x6 lens is about 700mm. The 250 is about

1200mm. Welcome to 8x10.

[brian_ellis16]

Not many 8x10 field cameras have rear shift and those that do may not have the bellows extension you'll need to get as close as you want to get. The very approximate equivalent in 8x10 of your 180 and 250 lenses in 6x6 is 600mm and 800mm. An 800mm lens requires a 32 inch bellows just to focus at infinity. I would think a monorail is more likely to meet your needs than a field camera, especially since you say weight isn't important and price apparently is.

[miles_feigenbaum___dallas_]

http://www.keh.com/shop/class.cfm?bid=LF&sid=newused&crid=9302773

[steve_hamley]

Shift on the rear standard of an 8x10 field camera really "thins the herd". The only one I can think of this early is the Canham traditional wood - and boy does it have rear shift - about 10" of it. Can use a wide a range of lenses as anything (and about a meter of bellows), and about half the price of the Ebonys, none of which have rear shift standard in an 8x10. Wisner may have something similar, but I haven't checked.

 

Don't know about euro dealers, but I'd probably contact Robert White for starters.

 

Steve

[neal_chaves1]

I have owned and used Deardorf and Zone VI (sent it right back) 8X10s, and have settled on, and been quite happy with, a Toyo 810M for the last fourteen years. I had to replace the bellows, but had one made by Western Bellows that is far superior to the original, and it can focus a 120mm lens to infinity in a recessed board.

 

The most important thing for a portrait view camera is that it can focus from the rear, as focusing from the front in portrait or close-up situations changes the lens to subject distance and can make it impossible to focus without moving the whole camera. You need genuine geared focus on the rear.

[karl_knize]

Rear shift for portrait work? I'm curious as to the need. Also a lens in the 800 -

1200 mm range. You have apples and oranges here. An 18 " lens on 8x10 is

going to flatten your subject a bit without having to deal with a mile of bellows

draw. Or working a 1/4 mile away from the subject. I guess my point is that

8x10 and the accompanying optics has a look of its own, and I think you have

to make judgments about lenses and focal length based upon your own

perceptions. I've never used a 24" or 35" lens for portrait work but I have for

product photography, shooting 8x10 on an 11x14 studio Deardorff with 6'

bellows, and these focal lengths do flatten but the difference is not as

dramatic as a 250mm on 6x6. As a reference, Avedon used a 250mm a lot for

3x4 portraits made with a Deardorff. The working distance to the subject was

such that communication and eye contact was facilitated, and a few shots

actually turned out prettty well.

[Troll]

Have you really fully thought through this 8x10 move?

[vince_pulvirenti1]

Sounds like the Calumet C-1 8x10 is just what your looking for, their are a couple running on ebay currently.

[l._duijvesteijn]

thanks everybody for the knowledgeable replys. i'll try to answer everybody:

 

I realize that really long lenses (600-800 mm) are a complicated thing in 8x10. i guess i'll

have to settle for 500 mm? hopefully that will give me a narrow enough angle of view and

will allow me to focus on my subject that's 6-10 ft. away from me. if anybody knows this

for sure, please let me know.

 

the canham traditional wood looks like a very good option! it'll either be that or a

monorail. i've used an sinar 8x10 monorail quite a bit and i love it in the studio but i'll

need something that's quicker to set up.

 

the rear focusing is a very good point which i hadn't thought about. but as far as i know

there are no field cameras with rear shift AND rear focusing? anybody know about this?

 

Karl, the reason i like rear shift for portraits is that for me the distrbution of form is really

important. so when i've placed my subject, a small shift to the left or right can get me the

composition and distribution of form i'm looking for. Without rear shift i'd have to move

the whole tripod and that won't work. and the flattening effect of long lenses is what i like

the most, but i think i'll have to compromise there..

 

and Bill, just because i'm doing something that maybe not a lot of 8x10 photographers are

doing, doesnt mean that i do not have a clue.

 

so thanks everyone, any more suggestions are more than welcome!

[karl_knize]

I think one overlooked and seldom mentioned skill that needs be developed

on the 8x10 learning curve is controlled tripod setup and nudging. After 20

years with Deardorff, it's become second nature.<div></div>

[richard_rau]

Although the wood Canham certainly is an option....I have to

admit...it takes me twice as long to set up my 5x7 Canham as it

does my Deardorff Special . The Deardorff is a joy to use, the

Canham just takes a lot longer to set up and fold away. It's just a

bit more finicky to set up and take down. You basically have to

loosen every knob and swing and tilt in order to fold it up. You

definitely should use one before you decide if that is the way to

go. Also, I have hardly ever used the rear shift on my Canham.

Maybe once in the last 4 years. However, I mostly shoot

landscapes. You can find a large assortment of long lenses at

Lens and Repro in N.Y. They usually have 19" and 24" and

occasionally longer Artars available. Good luck.

[l._duijvesteijn]

thanks everyone for the replys. it looks like i'll either go with a canham traditional or a

cambo/sinar p.

 

And for the lens i'll see if i can still get my hands on a cook triple convertible. I think that

will just about cover my needs!

 

regards,

 

Lodewijk

[steve_hamley]

The Canaham traditional will focus front or rear. It does that a bit longer to set up, 13 knobs and levers to deal with.

 

Steve

[daniel_smith6]

For what you describe the Canham should do the job well. I don't know why you need rear shift when basic front shift will most likely do the job. If you want to get into the format on the cheap the Calumet C-1 mentioned earlier would be a good way to go. Solid, a lot of bellows extension to work with & they are generally under $500 on the used market.

Getting an inexpensive one to try might make sense, as your lens 'equivalent' desire may well change as the reality of shooting 8x10 sinks in. It isn't a straight line and most of us who shoot the format went through the same thing but found that we didn't need the longer lenses as we first thought.

Whichever you do, best of luck.

[michael_briggs2]

<p>Some of your question are similar to the recent question <i>8x10 lens selection query</i>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AF1w">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AF1w</a>.

There I wrote about using the basic equations of optics to figure out the working distance for a particular focal length lens and magnification. I also said a few words about lens focal length and perspective for portrait photography.</p>

 

<p>Here are a few example calculations for your cases. For the head and shoulders portrait, suppose that you want to reduce 16 inches vertically to 10 inches on the film -- this would be a magnification M = 0.625. Using the equation So = (1+M) f / M, where So is the distance from the object to the lens, the answer for an 800 mm lens is So = 2080 mm = 82 inch. The distance from lens to film Si will be 1300 mm = 51 inches !! Very, very few 8x10 camera can do this. The total distance from object to image (film) will be 3380 mm = 11 feet, so you would also need a large studio.</p>

 

<p>Trying f = 600 mm, the equations give So = 1560 mm = 61 in and Si = 975 mm = 38 inches, which is still a very long extension and bellows. Trying f = 450 mm, the equations give So = 1170 mm = 46 in and Si = 731 mm = 29 inches.</p>

 

<p>For your head and shoulders case, I suppose that you want to reduce 60 inches vertically into the 10 inch dimension of the film -- this is a magnification M = 0.167. For a 450 mm lens, So = 3145 mm = 123 in and Si = 525 mm = 21 in. The bellows length Si is plausible, but a large studio will be needed. If you switch to a 300 mm lens, the figures reduce to So = 2096 mm = 82 in and Si = 350 mm = 14 in.</p>

 

<p>Don't forget to figure the exposure compenstation for bellows extension.</p>

[ken_lee11]

Michael - I am puzzled. I thought that to get a 1:1 ratio on film, we need double the bellows draw that we need for infinity. Thus, a 300mm lens requires 600mm of extension to make a 1:1 image. According to your formula above, it needs 350mm just to make a 1:0.167 or 1/6 size. Am I missing something here ?

[michael_briggs2]

<p>From the equations on the Lens Tutorial, <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial">http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensTutorial</a>,

M = f/ (So - f) = (Si - f) /f, equations can be found for object distance to lens So and image distance to lens Si:

So = f (1 + M) / M and Si = f ( 1 + M).</p>

 

<p>The case of an image one-sixth of life size can be written either M = 1/6 = 0.167 or 1:6 (the usual order is image:object size in this notation). For M = 1/6 and f = 300 mm, the equations give So = 2096 mm and Si = 350 mm -- for a small image, the object is far and the bellows extension is small. As the object becomes farther away, the magnification decreases and the distance from lens to image decreases, approaching the focal length f.</p>

 

<p>The corresponding case, a image that is six times larger than life size, is M = 6 (also 6:1), for which the equations give So = 350 mm and Si = 2100 mm. The values for So and Si exchange when M goes from 1/X to X. (This example has a small discrepancy from rounding.) For a huge in-camera enlargement the bellows extension is very large but the subject distance is small.</p>

 

<p>Plugging M = 1 into the above equations, one gets So = Si = 2 f,

as expected -- 600 mm for both distances to the lens for a 300 mm lens.</p>

 

<p>The bellows extension to focus on a distant objects changes slowly as the object moves farther or nearer to the camera -- in contrast, the bellows extension for a near object changes by a large amount as the distance to the near object changes.</p>

[ken_lee11]

Michael - You are right. Thanks !