LF advice

[carles_pradas]

<p>Hi everybody,<br>

I'm thinking about LF for any months...<br>

I usually shot film in 35 mm with a Leica M6 and in MF with a Rolleiflex Planar 3.5 but I'm planning to update to a bigger format, specially for landscape photography.<br>

Now, I need advice about LF. Which camera, lens, etc.<br>

I prefer a field camera because is more portable and lightweight but I'll wait our advices. Which aspects should I consider and which brands are better for a beginner. Some people talk me about Linhof but I think that is too expensive for me. Another point is the budget, first of all for the obvious reason and then for my inexperience in this kind of format; it's a machine to learn.<br>

thanks,<br>

C.<br>

<br /></p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>First, I would start out by reading everything you can at http://www.largeformatphotography.info then diving into their Q&A forum where there's a wealth of good info and an active buy/sell forum.</p>

<p>I would likely recommend a wood field camera (look at Wista, Tachihara, Shen Hao, Chamonix) and a couple lenses such as a 135mm and 210mm from any of the big four (Nikon, Fuji, Rodenstock, Schneider), plus the necessary accessories. You could probably put together a good kit for around $1k by shopping smart on the used market.</p>

[leighb]

<p>I was going to recommend the Large Format forum, but Sheldon beat me to it.</p>

<p>There's lots of information available on the web. I would suggest reading some of the tutorials here and on the LF forum.</p>

<p>The first decision is what format to use. I would strongly suggest 4"x5". There are many more products available to support that format, and they won't bankrupt you.</p>

<p>The "standard" lens for 4x5 is around 135mm. Shorter FLs of around 90mm are used for wide-angle applications such as landscapes. Make sure you get one designed for wide-angle use, otherwise your image circle may be too small.</p>

<p>LF photography is a complex subject, with many more variables than you'll find in smaller formats. </p>

<p>It's great fun, and the results are spectacular.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[tom_cheshire]

<p>Get a nice 4x5 wood camera by Tachihara, Ikeda or Shen Hao. Something like that. The usual lens on a 4x5 is the 210mm but the "normal" lens is considered 150mm. For landscape you want(?) a wide angle so that is 90mm or 75mm. All the good modern lenses are by Rodenstock, Schneider, Nikon, Fuji or, the same but generic marked, is Caltar (from Calumet).</p>

[friedemann_pistorius]

<p>Pick a wooden folding camera, some good brands have been mentioned above.</p>

<p>Start with ONE lens. You'll learn much better and quicker with "normal" or slightly longer lenses, i.e. 150, 180 or 210mm. Future lenses will be based on your experience.</p>

<p>You'll need a sturdy tripod, film holders, film, dark cloth, cable release, lightmeter, focusing loupe (magnification 4x will do).</p>

<p>The camera should be solid and stable. If you're not going into architecture most wooden cameras offer more movements you'll probably need.</p>

<p>Metal vs. wood: if properly adjusted, focused and exposed, no person will ever be able to tell you from the final image which camera was used. So base your choice on weight and taste.</p>

<p>Your first camera and lens will probably not your last ones. Needs change with growing experience.</p>

<p>Good luck with LF, and - - do it!</p>

<p> </p>

[brucescameras]

<p>As far as the metal vs. wood question, wood is lighter and is not a problem in freezing weather. It is not as tough as metal, but mahogany or anything harder is tough enough. These are the movements the camera should have to work successfully on a beginning level: Front rise/fall, tilt & swing; rear tilt & swing. Side to side shift can be helpful on front and back, but is rarely used by most people and is unavailable on most budget cameras. I can't mention brands because I sell these kind of cameras and p.net gets angry when I do. If you have questions or doubts about that just email me. One lens is enough to start. 150 is normal. Anything from 135 to 210 will do in most situations except maybe landscape. Again, I can't mention brands, but there are big differences between the four major brands. A loupe is a good idea, but if you happen to be nearsighted don't get one. Just look with your bare eyes. A cable release is helpful, but not strictly needed unless you use very slow exposures. There is little difference between filmholders. In fact the three major brands were all made by the same person. If you shoot b&w, I recommend tri-x film. A dark shirk that buttons down the front may be used as a darkcloth. Careful with the tripod. It should be rated for at least 4x5 cameras. Carbon fiber is very light but has a tendency to tip over and break your camera. This has happened to three of our customers (maybe more). If you get only one tripod, get a metal one.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<blockquote>

<p>Again, I can't mention brands, but there are big differences between the four major brands.<br>

A loupe is a good idea, but if you happen to be nearsighted don't get one. Just look with your bare eyes.<br>

A cable release is helpful, but not strictly needed unless you use very slow exposures.<br>

Carbon fiber is very light but has a tendency to tip over and break your camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would disagree with all of the above statements.</p>

<p>There is not a huge difference between modern lenses from Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock or Schneider and I've shot with them all extensively. Minor nuanced differences in color/contrast yes, no real difference in sharpness, and certainly not big differences.</p>

<p>Get a loupe. It doesn't have to be expensive, heck even a $5 plastic cheapo is better than nothing. Critical focusing becomes very important with tilts/swings.</p>

<p>Get a cable release, they are cheap. The last thing you want to do is be poking the lens with your finger at the moment of exposure, or trying to hold your shutter lever while counting out a 2 second exposure. Almost all of my landscape exposures were in the range of 1/2 second to 30 seconds. Shooting at f/22 and in the golden hour of sunrise/sunset light (exactly how you'd want to make landscape photos) is going to guarantee that you will be making slow exposures.</p>

<p>Carbon fiber has no more propensity to tip over than anything else. Pay attention to wind and the center of gravity, and you'll be fine. The best tripods in the world right now are carbon fiber. I'm sure whatever your current tripod is will continue to serve you well, as long as it's not a Walmart special. (Doubtful given that you've got Leica and Rollei gear).</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I would disagree with all of the above statements.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Get a loupe. It doesn't have to be expensive, heck even a $5 plastic cheapo is better than nothing. Critical focusing becomes very important with tilts/swings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No need to disagree with that one. If you normally wear negative dioptre lenses, viewing without glasses is the same as using a positive dioptre loupe with normal (or corrected) vision.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>True, reading glasses are an often recommended substitute for a loupe, usually used if you've reached the appropriate age. Not quite there myself yet .</p>

<p>I preferred a 6x loupe, slightly more powerful than typical reading glasses.</p>

[jim_jones3]

<p>A photographer's most valuable asset is knowledge, not the newest cameras. In addition to the largeformatphotography site linked to above and <a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum13/">http://www.apug.org/forums/forum13/</a>, get one of the many books on view camera photography. My favorite is<em> View Camera Technique</em> by Leslie Stroebel, now in its 7th edition. Other books on the subject may be less technical, but perhaps newer. Basic view camera technique evolves slowly, so new literature and new equipment are not necessary. <br>

Quality cameras and lenses from fifty years ago are still capable of taking better photos than most of us who use them. Remember, Edward Weston never used equipment even that new. Many of Ansel Adams' iconic photos were taken with equipment that is now many decades old. With careful shopping, a complete outfit might cost only a few hundred dollars, and last a lifetime. With experience, you might want to upgrade. Then you will have the knowledge to wisely buy more expensive gear. <br>

For landscapes, I sometimes use press cameras. A Speed Graphic in the Pacemaker series or a comparable Burk & James or Busch press camera might not be as versatile for landscapes, but usually suffices. They even have a few advantages. <br>

Study all your options before spending much money. Hands-on experience is valuable. If this isn't possible for you, read the experiences of others on photographic web sites. This can be more reliable than information from someone with something to sell.</p>

[jodys]

<p>The great thing I found about large format photography is the cost. Aside from film, costs are in fact minimal if you don't mind using older gear. I've never paid more than $100 for a camera (8 or 9 now, I don't remember- 1880s to 1960s), and never more than $150 for a lens/shutter (20+ currently in use - 1860s to 1990s). My all-time favorite camera is the battleship-grey maple Burke & James view camera from the 50s, can easily be found for $100-$150 with a lens and a few film holders. That's about all you need to get going, the remaining items can be scrounged from a $dollar store. If you're hesitating because of costs, don't. Look at the auctions, look at local sales in your area (Craigslist et al), and get some advice on any specific kit before making the purchase if you're not sure.</p>

<p>A checklist of what you actually need to take your first pics:<br>

1-camera, good condition bellows & rails, preferably with modern back<br>

2-a lens, any 'normal' length (135-210 or so, for 4x5), preferably in a shutter if you're just getting started, with a lens board that fits your camera- you can usually make that yourself if you're handy<br>

3-one or more double-sided film holders that fit your camera back, and a dark place to load the film<br>

4-a box of film<br>

5-some sort of magnifier to focus, can be cheap reading glasses<br>

6-some sort of dark cloth to be able to focus, can be an old t-shirt<br>

7-some means of developing the film, either a darkened room in the house with a tray, tank, whatever, or a lab<br>

8-tripod doesn't hurt, but you can improvise if you don't have one<br>

Pretty much everything else can be learned on the fly, once you've taken the first steps. I bought my first kit off the 'bay in the 90s (50s Press camera w/135 Xenar), got a lab to load the film for me, and just stopped the car on the side of the road somewhere, climbed up on the roof of the car with my tripod and gear (it was an old car), and took my first 2 shots. Dropped 'em off at the same lab that afternoon, got the results the next day. I was hooked.</p>

[razzledog]

<p>Just to throw another angle at you...get a 4x5 P+S rangefinder...then you won't need a loupe, a cable release, a ground glass screen or a tripod. You can shoot as easily as using a DSLR. Shoot black and white film for 50c a sheet, develop it yourself, (anyone can do this) scan the negs and print big. It's just plain simple.<br>

You won't have movements, but that's no big deal either, you can play with perpective later in PS if you need to....at least you can travel light with a camera that's permantly set up with a fixed 90mm, 127mm, 135mm or 150mm lens. LF doesn't have to be an arduous exercise.<br>

See how easy it can be...

 

[carles_pradas]

Hi everybody.

First of all thanks for your responses.

After your advices, my investigations and, of course, my budget thats my conclusion:

I found some graflex graphics on ebay at good price. What do you think? Think in beginner.

Thanks

[leighb]

<p>A word of caution regarding rangefinders on LF cameras like the Graphics...</p>

<p>The rangefinder optical system is coupled to the camera stage using a lever and cam mechanism. <br /> The cam must be matched to the lens, and so must the range scale screwed to the camera bed.</p>

<p>If you change lenses, you must also change the cam and the scale to retain normal accuracy. These parts are nearly impossible to find, being made of Unobtanium.</p>

<p>Obviously focusing on the ground glass is not affected by the cam or scale.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[razzledog]

<p>You're correct Leigh...interchangeable lens rangefinders must have perfectly matched cams for each lens...but I wouldn't trust this system 100%, even with a Linhof. I was referring to the converted Polaroid 4x5 where the lens and cam are matched to the lens fitted and this is your only choice . I prefer to work with a single focal length anyway, getting to know the capability as well as the limitation and being able to place trust in the rangefinder's accuracy is a real bonus. <br /> Ground glass focusing means using a tripod... so by the time it's all set up the opportunity has gone.</p>

[leighb]

<p>Hi Dean,</p>

<p>There's a lot of room for error in rangefinder systems. You can go all the way from precision lenses with FLs known to 0.1mm and cams precision-ground, to stamped FLs and stamped cams. The price varies a lot from one type to the other, and those in between.</p>

<p>You don't need a tripod to GG focus. I can do it hand-held. The results are perhaps less than optimum. ;-)</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[razzledog]

<p>I have never experienced an accuracy problem yet, but then I know how to set the mechanism up... All these shot with a Polaroid 4x5, mostly wide open at f5.6 :<br>

http://www.pbase.com/image/111665555<br>

How do you manage to hold a (usually heavy) 4x5 steady enough to use the GG? Do you use a loupe, surely that would require three hands? LOL.</p>

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>How do you manage to hold a (usually heavy) 4x5 steady enough to use the GG? Do you use a loupe, surely that would require three hands? LOL.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, three hands. A marvel of modern prosthetic surgery. I never claimed it was steady.<br /> It's a bit difficult to explain to casual acquaintances and folks I meet on the bus. ;-)</p>

<p>A perhaps simpler solution would be a helmet with an overhanging arm and a sling to support the camera. This only requires two hands (and a very strong neck).</p>

<p>But back to reality...<br /> It's not a question of properly adjusting the mechanism. It's a question of not being able to get the correct cam for a newly-acquired lens in the first place. In fact I've never seen a cam for sale by itself; only with its lens.</p>

<p>I'm not familiar with the Polaroid and its rangefinder mechanism, but I am pretty familiar with the Kalart used on the Graphics and other models.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[razzledog]

<p>I guess the secret lies in the fact that each cam is ground to suit the lens supplied, then they're both fitted to the camera...<br>

Micro adjustment takes only a second or too, should it wander due to shipping , dropping, change in climate or use in a war zone.</p><div></div>

[michael_chmilar]

<p>If your primary purpose is landscape, then a field camera will be more useful than a rangefinder-based one. The rangefinder is pretty useless for landscape, whereas easily operated movements on the field camera (rise/fall, tilt) are very useful and important. You will almost certainly grow to using more than one lens, and, again, the rangefinder cameras fall down here.<br>

To keep the price down, look at something like the relatively inexpensive Shen-Hao or consider a used camera.</p>

[razzledog]

<p>I would agree to a certain extent that the rangefinder...(and I'm talking Polaroid converted 4x5's here) is a little limiting for landscape work compared to the conventional tripod mounted view camera with movements, however the same camera fitted with a 90mm Angulon can still hold its own as a photographic tool for landscapes. In my experience no other LF rangefinder/viewfinder setup has the ability to provide such a huge viewing window with its brightline borders, parallax compensation and decent clarity.<br /> This fast little rangefinder is primarily a street shooter that also doubles as a portait camera...It's role is most ideal for reportage such as here: http://www.chrisusher.com/projects.html#id=album-14&num=1<br /> Some situations may not suit the use of a tripod if travelling light and interchangeable lenses will add more to the load....a lot of gear can soon become too much weight to carry around, especially in a backpack. Let's face it, the perfect 4x5 for all occasions has not yet been invented...(any ideas?)<br /> Getting back to landscapes, I can pull a pretty good result out of the old Polaroid's original Rodenstock 127mm f4.7 when hand held...and the 90mm equipped camera can almost fit in my pocket!<br /> It all depends on what you want to shoot....and how.</p><div></div>

[razzledog]

<p>Despite my undying love for the converted Polaroid...if I was going to purchase a view camera, there's one that I'd definitely recommend...the Chamonix 045n-1: http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/45.html<br /> This is a beautifully built and well designed lightweight view camera that is really hard to beat.<br /> My lens recommendation for landscape work would be the Schneider 90mm f6.8 Super Angulon.<br /> You need look no further for the best IMHO, would be so nice if I could afford either....LOL.</p>