Monorail of Field - sharpness is the issue here

[marcus_leonard]

Having used a medium format Pentax67 for a couple of years I want to upgrade to a 4x5. My photography demands no or little tilt or swing. I photograph outdoors, roadsides and the like, my focusing distance almost always between 20m and infinity, with a normal lens (150mm in 4X5). Sharpness, detail, is the issue here. I have asked my printer who knows my demands pretty well, he argues in favor of a monorail, in

particular some Arca Swiss, with a shortened rail. I had been thinking of a Toyo45AX (I always shoot "horizontally", never vertical and need no revolving back), my printer has his doubts about the mechanics of the Toya45AX and the ramifications for the SHARPNESS FROM EDGE TO EDGE. I am reluctant towards a monorail, but if it gives better results there is no choice. Can anybody help me out here? I would appreciate it tremendously. Thanks. Oh, sure, the lens is of course part of the story, I am inclined to buy a Rodenstock Apo Sironar S 150mm.

[pat_krentz]

If sharpness is the story, the lens is the whole story, the type of

camera it sets on has nothing to do with the sharpness of the image,

but field camera's are a lot more steady in the field than monorails.

Why not get a 210mm that will allow for some movements and with 17

inches of bellows you can get 1:1 if you wish. Pat

[michael_mahoney1]

As long as the camera is not moving about after you've focused, the

lens and film holder would probably have more impact on sharpness

than the camera body.

[wilhelm]

4x5 Crown Graphic, Linhof Technika, or Busch Pressman.

[brian_ellis3]

What size print do you typically have made? I use both the Pentax 67

and 4x5 with modern (APO Symmar, Super Angulon, G Claron, and Nikon M

lenses). My prints with 4x5 negatives are usually indistinguishable

from those made with 6x7 negatives, with 8x10 and 11x14 prints. If

you don't anticipate using movements, and it sounds like you don't,

and if you don't develop your own negatives, I'm not at all sure a

move to 4x5 is going to do you much good unless your prints are

typically 16x20 or larger. But, if you still want to go to 4x5, I

agree with the person who said the type of camera (monorail vs.

field) is of no significance at all in terms of sharpness and detail.

Assuming a good tripod, a quality lens, and a good camera, both

designs will produce equally sharp and detailed negatives.

[jim_billups1]

Marcus,

 

<p>

 

I have been using the Toyo 45AX for almost 3 years now, and am quite

pleased with the performance. I also use the Rodenstock Apo Sironar S

150mm as well as Toyo film holders exclusively. lack of Edge to edge

sharpness has never presented it's self. As others have posted above,

sharpness is not limited to particular brands or types of cameras.

There are many factors that can affect overall sharpness.

[glenn_kroeger]

Marcus: I have used both an Arca-Swiss 45FC and a Toyo 45AX

extensively. The only situation in which the Arca-Swiss MIGHT produce

a slightly sharper image is with a lens >300mm in focal length where

the rigidity of the Arca is somewhat better. The Toyo mechanically

excellent but somewhat more flexible at its maximum extension which

is needed to focus a non-telephoto 300mm lens. For a 150-210mm lens,

both cameras will produce equal results if used correctly. I would

have to agree with Brian, that if you use no tilt or movements, you

won't see any improvement in the image unless you enlarge to more

than 16x20, and you will sacrifice some depth of field.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Going from one format to another isn't really an upgrade in the

sense that I think you mean it. I cannot imagine that any 4x5

camera really is going to fit your needs. A modern roll film SLR is

going to hold film flatter than any large format holder will and

you'll have more precise alignment between groundglass and

film plane location as well. if you are looking for a camera that

will give you some basic movements like shift or rise fall as wel

las tilt than you should consider the Fuji GX 680III instead.

<P>Changing formats from a roll film SLR to a view camera is

more like a change in photographic philosophy.

[bill_glickman]

Marcus, if you do attempt 4x5 and are choosing between the field and

monorail type...I can add only one thing.... I shoot with the Toyo

45AII and the Toyo VX125. The VX125 having a telescopic monorail

makes the set up and break down process way way faster. If you shoot

a lot, this sure is a nice feature...but you pay for it in camera

size. I agree with the above posters...put your money in the

sharpest lenses and the best film holders you can afford....

[paul_owen]

Marcus, I'd stick with your current set-up. As long as it does the

job why change? Changing to LF is not about "upgrading". As previous

postings have already mentioned, your medium format kit

is "technologically" way ahead of most LF. Using a view camera

involves a change in the whole process of making pictures. I'm not

sure what medium you use (colour or black and white) but a move to LF

demands some control over processing and printing. The Pentax has an

excellent reputation, stick with it!! Regards Paul

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Marcus

 

<p>

 

I agree with the most former posters but not with the idea thad you

need a monorail if you start with 4x5 it will be the best a Linhof

Technika or the Horseman FA for your use and demand!

And for the lens the Rodenstock Apo Sironar N is a little bit sharper

then the S version and it is also not so heavy! And for your little

movements very okay.

But if the sharpness is your goal you need the Schneider Vacuum Back

too, so you get everything out of the lens!

Good luck!

[bob_salomon3]

" And for the lens the Rodenstock Apo Sironar N is a little bit

sharper then the S version"

 

<p>

 

Afraid you have your facts backwards

 

<p>

 

The S is the superior version

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Bob

 

<p>

 

I was quiet sure to get a response from you regarding my stating. I did

a testing for my self 4-5 years ago S version against the N version,

and the N version was the winner in sharpness, but only visible in

really uge 30x times enlarments. So it was head on head with a very

little pluspoint for the N!

And I spoke to a men from germany, he came to the same results!

But If I would need much shift and tilts I would take the S version

without any doubts!

[bob_salomon3]

Sorry Armin but I question your testing.

 

<p>

 

How many of each lens?

 

<p>

 

What conditions?

What image ranges?

 

<p>

 

The S will win 9+ times out of 10

[doug_paramore]

Brian Ellis brought up one really important part of LF sharpness: The

use of a good tripod. Get one twice as sturdy and heavy as you think

you need. As for sharpness, any modern, well designed camera coupled

with the Sironar lens will produce excellent sharpness. My preference

for the shooting conditions you describe would be for a field or

technical camera. You also need a good loupe. One other point... once

you start using a LF camera, you may find that you will use the

swings and tilts more than you think at this point. Good luck with

your quest.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

[david_rose3]

A Crown Graphic would be perfect for the work you describe. The main

limitation of the Crown is a non-rotating back, but if you want only

horizontal format images, it's perfect. It also has the advantage of

being cheap, so you won't loose to much if you decide LF doesn't work

for you, or if you want to try a different camera once you get a feel

for things LF. Put your money into the lens.

[jeff_taugner2]

Armin, Just so you know, Schneider is no longer making Vacuum back.

They had too many problems with the material it was made from with

static electricity.

[wilhelm]

I agree about the Crown Graphic. I also agree that you're not gonna

notice any improvement from the 6x7 on a tripod until you get to 8x10

contact prints.

[bruce_m._herman1]

Marcus,

 

<p>

 

If you live near a gallery that has Robert Glenn Ketchum's

photographs, you could see some very sizable enlargements of images

made with a Pentax 6x7. I haven't heard anyone complain about his

technique.

 

<p>

 

One significant advantage the 6x7 as over the 4x5 is ease of setup. I

know of at least one professional who moved up to 4x5 for landscape

photography and then moved back when he saw how frequently he lost the

light before he could trip the shutter.

 

<p>

 

Having said all of that, I moved from 35 directly to 4x5 and will stay

where I am because I make extensive use of tilt and rise/fall. I

think that once you move to 4x5, you may find your horizons expand if

you explore the movements that are available.

 

<p>

 

Bruce

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Bob

 

<p>

 

Just to answer your question. To be honestly I tested only one S

against one N and thad N I still use and I don`t give it away!

But what is with the german gentleman who got the similar results like

me, without knowing about bevor? Of course it could be a lucky chance,

but as far as I remember he tested more then only one.

Mine I tested has been new, at the testing!

But anyway it is easier to make a small diameter lens perfect then a

larger one you agree on thad, Bob?

But as mentioned in my first posting, if I would need the larger image

circle from the S then I would take it!

[bob_salomon3]

Armin,

The S has measurably and visably better performance, less

distortion, better color, better range of optimal apertures, etc.

 

<p>

 

The problem is how did you test them?

 

<p>

 

I haven't seen your answer.

 

<p>

 

And it is possible that you found a truly superior N. But I still

question the test first.

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Bob

 

<p>

 

I forgott the image range! The testing where 2 and 4 meters distance,

my almost working distance in my little studio.

But if I take it out for longer distances at infinity I`m always happy

with the results, if it was a clear day!

But the testing was only 2 and 4 meters without shift and tilt!

[marcus_leonard]

To everyone who wrote an answer to my question:

 

<p>

 

Thank you all very much, it is really wonderful to find so many

responses, after just one day!

 

<p>

 

The reason for calling a 67 to 45 move an upgrade is that I really

want to make large (color) prints, 30X40 (inches) or larger.

With my 67 I shoot in a very slow way, always using a tripod, being

economic with film. In fact, in that respect I seem to use my 67 as a

mini 45. So the philosophy, also my attention for the image

composition, seems to me not that different, I did consider this

issue. The point about the lesser degree of film leveling in a LF is

well taken. However, the tripling of the number of grains is the

decisive factor, provided optics and mechanics will not negate this

benefit. Film holding will to some degree, I worried about the

mechanics and wondered about mono versus field. Your answers seem to

tell me not to worry about that issue. Right?

[ellis_vener_photography]

I've had no problem having 40"x40" prints made from 6cm x 6cm

Hasselblad camera/Zeiss lenses) negatives and

transparencies, or 24"x 30" prints made from 6x7cm film (Pentax

67 bodies and lenses. Detail is rendered with extraordinary

crispness with architectural subjects. I am using mirror lockup

w/ cable releases, a good tripod (gitzo 410) and Arca-Swiss B1

and B2 Monoball heads.<P> whether you decide to go with a

monorail or a folding field camera design is sort of a personal

preference. A high quality monorail camera -- Arca-Swiss F

series, Linhof Technikardan TK45s, a Sinar P, C or X series --is

every bit as stable and possibly quite possibly even more stable

and as "solid" for field work as any field camera , and while they

have thhey have the benefit of more extensive movements, they

are also much bulkier (except in the case of the TK45s or the

Arca FC cameras).<P>

Bluntly: while right now you are insisting that you don't have any

need for movements, but my guess is that as soon as you get a

camera that has movements you'll start using them, especially

vertical & horizontal shift, if for no other reason than the greater

control you'll be able to exercise over your composition. Rear

swing and tilt will offer you a great deal of perspective rendering

control that a rigid bodied SLR cannot.<P>You should also

consider where the nature of custom printing is technologically

heading, and that is towards the universalization of some sort of

digital intermediate step for large print making. Labs that can

produce a better print directly from a piece of film than they can

from a scanned piece of film (with the print generated either

directly from the scan or (ala' Andreas Gursky) from a digitally

generated internegative or interpositive will become increasingly

hard to find over the next few years.

[william_marderness3]

I once used the Pentax 6x7 before switching to 4x5 and then to 8x10.

With 16x20 prints made from 400-speed color negative film, I could

tell a difference between 6x7 and 4x5. As close distances (within 12

inches of the print), the prints from 6x7 negatives showed grain. The

prints from 4x5 show no grain, even with a loupe. 8x10 contact prints

show an improvement over 4x5, but enlargements from 8x10 do not.<p>

If you want to make very large prints, the 4x5 may be right for you. I

have both monorail and field cameras, and my field camera is more

stable than the monorail, so the field camera should give sharper

results in the field (if there is wind). The stability of the camera

(not mono vs. field) can make a sharpness difference. I bet you will

use some movements once you have them. For landscapses, front tilt

allows you to get the land in focus from 1 inch to infinity, and front

rise will allow you to look up at trees without having them lean

backwards. I often use front tilt/rise outdoors.