Should I go straight to 4X5?

[jimpete]

<p> I have the mamiya 80mm and the 65mm lens. The 80 is great for street photography and people photography. It acts almost as a point and shoot at f 5.6 with nice background blur. You can even hand hold for this. It is reason enough just to hang on to this lens although it does just find for certain landscapes stopped way down. However, that isn't why I bought into the system. It was very enlightening to discover this kind of street photography application. I am a landscaper though and just bought the 65 and have indeed enjoyed the better depth of field. I would of bought the 43 and/or 50 but couldn't quite afford it. So with landscapes I would like to get excellent foreground (like wildflowers) to infinity focus. Is this achievable with the 43, 50, and 65 or should I just go sell everything and get a Chamonix 45n1 or Tachihara?</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>Keep everything and wait until you can afford a good 4x5...Ebony, Lotus, Sinar, Linhof, Plaubel are among the best. (I import Ebony and Lotus, so one might consider this posting biased, but it is not.)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>4x5 cameras and lenses are not particularly expensive, so why not give it a whirl. They're not expensive to rent either. I would suggest a field camera (folding) for landscape work. You don't need the extreme movements possible in a studio camera, nor the time it takes to set up a monorail in the field. You don't need a bunch of lenses either. A set of three can carry you through a lot of situations - 90, 150 and 210 (YMMV).</p>

<p>While you are day-dreaming, think about the infrastructure needed to handle, process and print sheet film. Also consider what kind of output you need. A 24x30 inch print is a lot to handle without expensive equipment, but there's not much improvement of 4x5 over medium format at that size - think 48x60 inches. A flatbed scanner will prove disappointing compared to what you see through a loupe, and a good 4x5 scanner will cost over $12K. Alternately, you can use a flatbed as a proofer, and get drum scans of the best images at $50 to $100 a pop.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>If 120 works for you now, you may want to stick with 120. For example, you may not have room for a 4 x 5 enlarger, or you may not have easy access to 4 x 5 C41/E6 processing. Factor this into your decision.</p>

<p>If all you want is view camera movements, you can do this easily and stay in medium format. </p>

<p>(a) Medium format view cameras are few and tend to be expensive, but you might be able to find a Galvin very cheaply. They are monorails, simply made, and were hand-crafted by the late Mr Jim Galvin. You can put any lens you want on a Galvin, and they take Graflex or RB backs. </p>

<p>(b) Medium format press cameras sell for practically nothing now. You can put most normal lenses on them within reason. They are unfashionable and they make poor view cameras, but you can get all the front tilt you need out of them if you're a landscaper, and there are tricks you can use to get other movements. </p>

<p>© A Mamiya RB/RZ with a 65mm tilting/shifting lens would be a consideration. The lens with tilt/shift adapter is pricey, and would set you back maybe $1500 second-hand.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>You might just consider using a 4X5 camera with a roll film back. The movements you would have can help with depth of field, perspective distortion and other problems. </p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>Mamiya didn't put really small stops on the M7 lenses but you would do well with the 43mm and f/22. The 65 and other wide lenses for this camera are all f/22 and is limiting for what you are trying to accomplish. The RB and RZ lenses have smaller stops. If it were me, I would get the 43mm and use that as my big DOF lens for landscapes.<br>

I do a lot of landscape work in MF and use a P67 with 55-100 zoom @ f/32 and a 90-180 @ f/45.</p>

[erie_patsellis]

<p>© A Mamiya RB/RZ with a 65mm tilting/shifting lens would be a consideration. The lens with tilt/shift adapter is pricey, and would set you back maybe $1500 second-hand.</p>

<p>An alternative would be to make, or have made, a holder for 6x7 RB backs on a 4x5, and a lens standard, I've done this and it makes life so easy to shoot architecture and landscape work with.<img src="http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r181/epatsellis/DSCF7015.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

[35mmdelux]

<p>I enjoy shooting 4x5 and have owned a variety of top notch field and monorail cameras. Perhaps some day when time is more abundant I'll pick up another Technika Master field.</p>

<p>Meantime, I finally decided to shoot landscapes with my Hasselblad & 60mm Distagon and my portraits with a 100mm Planar. Placed on a solid RIES tripod, I can compose and knock out a roll of film with impunity and makes getting away from the parking lot far easier.</p>

<p>Regards, Paul</p>

[jimpete]

<p>I should add that I think I can deal with filters doing landscape with the 7 and that I haven't taken enough shots yet with the 65 to answer my question.</p>

[jeff_drew4]

<p>If you want technically accurate images, the flexibility of 4x5 is a big plus! Swings'n'tilts can add & correct lines and DOF etc. There are the trade-offs regarding weight, film costs, workflows but you are the best judge. Once you have exhausted some of the options with what you have, then 4x5 opens another realm of possibilities.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>With 67 film a 50mm lens at f16 can give you dof extending from five feet to infinity. Some of the photographs you might have seen from the likes of Jack Dykinga have very sharp flowers or rock features notably closer than that. If thats where you want to play, and you aren't willing to give up sharpness at infinity, then you <strong><em>need </em></strong>to move to 4x5. The thing you'll need to grip is that the ability to achieve this carries consequences. Some of these are already mentioned in terms of a relatively slow and cumbersome way of making photographs, cost of getting a scan that will bring out the best from the acreage, and so on. Also you need to factor in the cost of film and processing. You can get great results but you will pay a price along a number of dimensions.</p>

<p>I'd guess that you need to take a look through a 67 camera with a 50mm or wider lens and see whether it offers the size of near subject whilst still acceptably sharp that you want. You can use dof tables to determine what your effective dof is. If it doesn't then what you need to do is quite clear, together with the compromises in convenience and cost you'll need to make.</p>

<p>If you do settle for a 67 route , you'll be able to make materially whatever size of print you want. Scans from drums and Imacons, together with todays digital printing, have turned what you can achieve from a neg or slide on its head. All the old stuff about how far you can enlarge a piece of film is just that- old stuff. So really I'm saying that the only reason you need to think about LF is if you need the camera movements and consequent near/far sharpness, avoidance of converging verticals etc. Sheer size of print isn't an issue unless your needs are truly extreme and your pockets very deep. </p>

<p>A part of your thinking that I'm inclined not to agree with is an implicit view that you can use the same system for street photography and near/far landscapes. 67 vs 4x5 aside, I'd prefer to make landscapes with a major dof component with a camera that allows me to see something of dof ttl and where I could position grads accurately.</p>

[rod_sainty2]

<p>Jim, I have the Mamiya 7 43mm lens and can report the depth of field achievable at f22. However, it is commonly agreed that the markings are one to two-stops optimistic and so careful workers use the DOF markings for an aperture two stops wider than that actually used to make the exposure. Using the DOF markings for f11, the DOF at f22 extends from 1.3m (~4.3 feet) to infinity. If you need less enlargement, you could refer to the DOF markings for f16 which suggest that DOF at f22 extends from 1m (3 feet) to infinity.</p>

<p>Here's another idea that may appeal: Recently I have been using a Cambo Wide 4x5 with a 65mm Schneider lens for landscape and architecture. The Schneider 65mm lens is optimised for f22 and also has f32 available. At f22, DOF extends from 1.45m (4.8 feet) to infinity. At f32, DOF extends from 1.2m (4.0 feet) to infinity. You can use 4x5 film holders or a variety of roll-film backs; I've been using a 6x12 back to obtain six 56mm x 112mm images on a 120 film. The resulting 2:1 ratio is pretty spectacular for landscape. The Cambo Wide is compact and very portable, very robust (it's die cast aluminum) and uses a helical focus mount rather than a bellows, assuring fast operation and the use of DOF markings. Impressively, the lens mount includes a geared shift/rise mechanism to give 15mm of shift or rise, allowing one to keep the camera horizontal for high subjects and thereby avoid converging verticals. You can use either a clip-on viewfinder or view and focus the image on the ground-glass back. I've been so impressed that I've bought a newer version for even more shift/rise and will sell this one. Contact me offline if you're interested. Another photo.net member posted some photos using this rig recently, though he didn't use the rise function and his verticals converge in the city shot: <a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00SGFI">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00SGFI</a> . Click on each link below the thumbnails. Rod</p>

[norris_lam]

<p>The mindset and operation of 4X5 is totally different from any point and shoot photography, i have to say this from my experience. You will need to slow down your speed and change your shooting subject in most of the cases. In addition, the film and its processing is experience as well. Don't forget the weight and bulky equipment.... Go into it if you want a shift of paradigm, another way to seek breakout. Enjoy and have fun.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Regarding the advice to wait until you can afford to buy a "quality" 5x4 with a designer name on it. I'd still be waiting to take my first sheet of film if I'd done that!</p>

<p>The camera is a box (light-tight if you're lucky), pure and simple. It's the glass you put in the front that determines the image quality, especially with 5x4 and larger. For the cost of an Ebony or similar, you can pick up a Cambo, kodak specialist, MPP Microtechnical, Graflex, Toyo, DeVere or any one of a dozen other perfectly useable makes and have enough left over for a decent lens and a few double-darkslides.</p>

<p>As for using a rollfilm back on a 5x4 camera - what's the point? You'll have all the weight and hassle of using LF without the film area to show for it. Rollfilm backs made sense when a 5x4 camera was every pro's workhorse and it saved the cost of an MF body and lenses, but today? A Hartlblei tilt and shift adapter on an old RB 67 body is probably just as flexible and far more cost-effective.</p>

[warren_williams]

<p>Having started photography with a 4x5 Graphic, I've always found large format to be a necessary choice for some types of photography. I feel I can tell a quality difference even at 8x10 on any scene with small detail (like leaves on trees) and subtile tonality. If 120 film works for you, a 6x9 back on a Shen Hao or Speed graphic is a modest cost and lightweignt route with some swings and tilts and 120 format lenses such as a 47 or 65 Super Angulon will yield excellent quality (and they are non retrofocus unlike slr lenses) at a reasonable cost. It will be a slower style wich can be good or bad depending on your frame of mind at the moment. Even a good flat bed scanner like a high end Epson will give good quality results from 4x5 and 6x9 up to a 8x10 enlargement. I would try an inexpensive kit for 6 months (and not sell the Mamiya if you can afford to) to see if it met your needs.</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>As Norris said, 4x5 is a different animal. It takes considerably longer to set up your shots, and it is slower in all respects. If you want to try it, buy yourself a Crown or Speed Graphic and see how it goes. That would probably only set you back a few hundred dollars, even w/ some film holders and film. I disagree that you need an expensive 4x5 camera to take great photos. It's all about the lens, not the camera. If you don't do a lot of architecture shooting you won't need a lot of movements, and the afore mentioned cameras fold up into very compact and relatively light packages.</p>

<p>I love the simplicity of the Crown Graphics, but quickly discovered that the slowness of everything is something I don't like. Myself, I haven't seen any difference in a 4x5 photos enlarged up to 8x10 compared to a 120 roll film camera, but then I have some good lenses on my old folders that image very well w/ B&W films.</p>

[mark liddell]

<p >I ditched my mamiya 7 and RB67 since the depth of field was just too small for the landscape shots I wanted to take and it really limited the compositions I could use.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I bought an Ebony RSW45 which is non-folding and only has front rise and tilt and the format reducer has a swing out ground glass and accepts RB67 backs. It is slower to use than a true mf camera but not by much and the freedom of lens tilt is worth it. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >This also means I have the option to shoot large format film with it too which I do for b&w but not colour as the cost is crazy. Developing sheet film is a bit of a pain but not too bad to do with tubes.</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>I shoot landscapes with both 4x5 (Wista field camera) and medium format (Fuji GW690 and GS645S rangefinders). They both have their advantages. Sometimes I take both the 4x5 and the GS645S on hikes. If there is room to set up a tripod in the desired location then I use the 4x5. But there are many instances where it is impossible or undesirable to set up a tripod or the moving clouds are in just the right position and you don't have time to set up. How many times have you wanted to quickly stop your car in a poor place to park, jump out of the car and take a photo? A medium format rangefinder can handle this roadside shooting situation but a 4x5 can't.</p>

[jimpete]

<p>Thanks a lot for all the great responses. I have learned a lot and am very appreciative. I will stick with what I have and try to max out what I can do with that and then go from there. Lot to be said for figuring out what you have first before moving on. Thanks again.</p>

[ronnie_pettit2]

<p>not sure if i can add anything to this of much value. i have the 7 with a 43. i also have a crown graphic. i don't have a hich quality lens for the crown and don't think i could get a lens wide enough on to suit me in the tight places i shoot. but, every time i backpack the mamiya 7..or i should say every time i make a print, after backpacking the mamiya, i am please.<br>

here is one with the 43mm lens at f/16, exp was ....about 1 minute.</p>

 

[ronnie_pettit2]

<p>not sure if i can add anything to this of much value. i have the 7 with a 43. i also have a crown graphic. i don't have a hich quality lens for the crown and don't think i could get a lens wide enough on to suit me in the tight places i shoot. but, every time i backpack the mamiya 7..or i should say every time i make a print, after backpacking the mamiya, i am please.<br>

here is one with the 43mm lens at f/16, exp was ....about 1 minute.</p>

<div></div>