Will shoot 4x5 on Alaska cruise --- any suggestions?

[debejyo]

<p>Hi Pros,<br>

I am potentially going to be on an Alaska cruise in July. I am taking 4x5 Cambo. I have sorbothane and snow shoes for my tripod. So I guess vibration insulation is taken care of. It would be of great help if someone shares their experience and lets me know what I should have in terms of films. I generally shoot Ektar 100 and Tmax 100. Also, I have 90mm and 210mm lenses. Its my first cruise. I have no idea what to expect and what I should be prepared for (tentatively --- as I know surprises will be there). There will be a couple of days on land too. Please advise.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Debejyo, I have no experience whatsoever with 4x5 or cruise ships so I'll likely learn much more from this thread than I can advise. With that disclaimer, on the surface, the 4x5 sounds like a cumbersome rig for a trip like that, especially with only a couple of days on land. My first inclination would be to advise you to take along a decent P&S for what I think would likely be the camera you'd be using most. The results you get from the 4x5, when you can use it, admittedly will likely produce the superior images. I just don't think it's the appropriate choice of camera to take on such a trip. I think you'll regret it, especially if it's your only camera. Now, having stuck my neck out, to sit back & perhaps learn something. Best, LM.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>My first inclination would be to advise you to take along a decent P&S </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what everyone else will be doing. Be different!</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>... perhaps a P&S like a Speed Graphic!</p>

[drew bedo]

<p>Any press camera, Hobo or even FotoMan . . .what about one of thePolaroid conversions? The Polaroids were designed to shoot hans-held. With a Grafmatic or two it could be just the ticket.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>A good 6x9 would be just as good and much easier to handle If had one that takes 120mm film :<br>

some of those older 6x9 take great photos:</p>

[danny_o]

<p>Debejyo, I think you'll regret it if you do not take the Cambo. I did the Alaska cruise last July, and limited myself to digital and a Mamiya 220. Admittedly, luggage for 3 weeks on flight and train limited what I could carry.<br>

I'll assume you will be cruising the inside passage, as I did. Expect cloudy, drizzly weather, overcast and foggy most of the time. Don't let that ruin your mood, you'll be cruising through mountainous islands, and the mist brings great atmosphere.<br>

The photo opportunities on the ship itself will be worthwhile, and the ship is probably stable enough for tripod use - no serious vibration to speak of.<br>

If you stop at Hoona, Icy Point Strait, take advantage of the trail through the rain forest, and also visit the town. And bring the camera. <br>

Carry a mix of B&W and colour, and I suggest the bulk of your film be in the 400 ASA range...Ketchikan is famous for its "Liquid Sunshine". Also, carry an umbrella.<br>

You will have opportunities to visit glaciers, and I suggest you have a nice wide lens to capture the vista. If you get lucky, and have sunshine, glacier ice is a brilliant blue.<br>

Good luck, and enjoy.</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>Everyone looks at plus side of this:<br>

Lets look at it this way : 4x5 cameras require a lot of attention, to take x-number of minutes to set up and tear down,you need to the proper lens for different shooting and you will need a bunch of film holders, unless you plan to take film with and change as you go. Then comes this factor how many 4x5 photos are your going to get , adding what I have stated if you were to stay there for a while yes it would be great, also what are miss going to miss with these factors. The only way I see doing this would be with graphlex camera even then you will limited there also you could step down to something like 3x4 camera. Hey I am just amateur.<br>

may you have a great time and get lots of good photos </p>

[geert_devos]

<p>Hi,<br>

As noted by other posters, you may get frustrated with the Cambo, due to the time you need to do the set up, and the fact that you always have to use it from a tripod<br>

A Graflex will certainly be of more use, certainly if mated to a 6x7, 6x9 or 6x12 roll film back. You can shoot hand held with it. The set back is the limited movement when you want to use it as a full movements TC.<br>

The Wista can be found in RF form, giving you the same speed of use as the Graflex when using it handheld, but with +/- all the movements of a TC when used on a tripod.<br>

The Toyo folding field camera will also give you those needed/wanted movements, but doesn't come with the coupled range finder like the Wista RF. But ut does exist in carbon fibre construction, making it very light for travel and packing.<br>

Beside these there is also the possibility to look for a Chamonix (new or second hand).</p>

[james_scholz]

<p>Debejyo,<br>

I have done those cruises about 12 times over the past 20 years. The first time I took 35mm film, mostly color print film. The next year I took 2 1/4, mostly color print film. The third year I took 4x5, mostly color print film. The fourth year I took 8x10, color print and bw film. Last summer I took high rez digital and shot lots of sequences and assembled them in Photoshop. Over the years the prints that have stayed on my walls and those of my customers have been almost exclusively the 4x5 and 8x10 in color and bw. Since I used a tripod and shot on land the film speed was not that important for my style of shooting. Shooting from the boat would be better with faster film. If I have another chance to photograph the inside passage I will either go with the high rez digital or the 8x10. Instead of taking my light meter for the 8x10 I will take my little point and shoot as it works well giving me exposure info and is handy for quick snaps and movies of the ship, ports, etc.<br>

Jim Scholz</p>

[razzledog]

<p>Just get yourself a 4x5 point an' shoot rangefinder...It's so simple to use.</p><div></div>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>When you go on shore excursions, are you going to be on foot, with a group in a van or bus, or have your own vehicle? I would forget 4x5 traveling with a group unless they are fellow photographers doing the same -- nobody will have the patience to wait while you set up, shoot and tear down. And you're going to have too much gear to carry on foot. I would only do it if I had arranged to rent a car (not as easy at a port as at the airport) or arranged for a car and driver (probably the best option).</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I would only do it if I had arranged to rent a car</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Snow shoes for the tripod are mentioned in the first post. I don't think a car will be of much use.</p>

[razzledog]

<p>Cannot understand this.. 'nobody will have the patience to wait while you set up, shoot and tear down. And you're going to have too much gear to carry on foot'?<br>

The light weight rangefinder doesn't require a tripod (hate this device with a passion)...and folded up it will almost fit in your vest pocket.<br>

Why guys need to lug around large heavy gear simply to shoot 4x5 is a total mystery.</p>

<div></div>

[bob_salomon]

<p>"Why guys need to lug around large heavy gear simply to shoot 4x5 is a total mystery."<br>

Unless they want to control the shape of the object they are photographing<br>

Or they want to control the zone of focus<br>

Or they want to adjust the position of the subject on the ground glass<br>

Or they want to shoot very wide (down to a 35mm focal length)<br>

Or they want to shoot very long<br>

Granted some of this requires a tripod but so does the converted Polaroid in low light without flash or at small apertures for greatest depth of field.</p>

 

[razzledog]

<p>It's simply a matter of 'Horses for Courses'. A tripod mounted view camera can indeed change perspective, it's also damn difficult to focus in low light using a ground glass screen no matter how fast the lens. Spontaneity and opportunity is also lost using a tripod mounted view camera so shooting street photography is difficult if not impossible. I know that in Melbourne, if you set up a tripod, you'll be quickly moved on, so the cumbersome apparatus becomes a liability. If you're out in the country and have plenty of time to 'set up' then obviously the extra gear is beneficial...<br>

It's a compromise...if you want to perform all the above, lug the gear.<br>

If you want to shoot large negs with the stealth of a lion, use a rangefinder.</p>

 

[bob_salomon]

 

 

<p>"If you want to shoot large negs with the stealth of a lion, use a rangefinder."<br>

Like a Master technika Classic, Super Technika IV or V al of which can be rangefinder coupled for lenses from 72mm to 360mm. Or a Wista RF that rangefinder couples with 135, 150 and 180mm lenses.<br>

There are many cameras that let you shoot 45 handheld and rangefinder coupled. The Wiosta RF and the Linhof Master Technika Classic are two, if not the only two, that are still current manufactured product. Both have worldwide distribution and service as well and a large range of accessories to tailor them for many different applications.<br>

But full movements for view camera work is standard on both. So they are both hand holdable and useable as a view camera when needed. the best of both worlds!</p>

 

 

 

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>"Why guys need to lug around large heavy gear simply to shoot 4x5 is a total mystery."<br />Unless they want to control the shape of the object they are photographing<br />Or they want to control the zone of focus<br />Or they want to adjust the position of the subject on the ground glass<br />Or they want to shoot very wide (down to a 35mm focal length)<br />Or they want to shoot very long</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or they just want to.</p>

[razzledog]

<p>Bob..I owned a Master Technika a while back..nice camera but rather reminiscent of a bowling ball.. the rangefinder and viewfinder are two different windows situated on different sides of the body. Too slow and awkward to use hand held, much the same as a Speed Graphic. Why these older style cameras couldn't have incorporated a large single window brightline finder is beyond me. I'm not saying a Polaroid 4x5 is a direct replacement, just a damn good alternative.<br /> Not everyone wants movements, interchangeable lenses and bulk. If I want to shoot that option I'd rather use the four times greater neg area of an 8x10, not piddle about with 4x5....LOL.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>The Wista RF does have a single window coupled system. But like the Polaroid it is no where near as versatile as the Linhof system which couples 72 to 360mm and whose add on finder zooms from 72 to 360mm.</p>

<p>Much more versatile in the field and that viewfinder can be used hand held to preselect the optimal lens before hauling out the camera. Even when on a scouting trip in advance.</p>

<p>And did I mention that that finder is parrallax corrected and automatically compensates for field size at different focusing differences? And that convenient, add-on masks, adapted the finder to 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm, Polaroid and 45 formats?<br>

And why would I want to carry the bulk and weight of a 57 ar 810 camera, tripod and lenses when I want the quality of a 45? An 810 contact print is only a 2x enlargement on 45. A 2x enlargement on 810 is the same as a 45x enlargement on 45. That would be the same magnification needed to make a 4x6" print from 35mm. Hardly a challage for a 45 image. Neither is a 10 or 15x enlargemnt from 45. And most shooters really don't go larger then 40 x 50" (10x) or 60 x 75" (15x). Nor do they have the wall space for them or the enlarger/lens to do so.<br>

And if people don't want interchageable lenses then explain why Nikon, Canon, Leica, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Minolta, Konica, etc. have sold so many of them over the years. Not to mention how third party manufacturers like Sigma, Tokina, Tamaron exist.<br>

It also does not explain why Linhof is the world's oldest camera manufacturer and is still selling cameras as well as Sinar, Deardorff, Arca, etc. Their primaryry cameras, not including digital, are still 45. Not 57 or 810. If the larger sizes were the main market then Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, etc. would no be reducing availability of film for those formats.</p>

[razzledog]

<p>I work in camera retail as well as film camera manufacture. There is and always will be a niche market especially when it comes to film. There's no question that anything labeled Linhof is of the finest quality..that's obvious.<br>

As for interchangeable lenses..well that can be somewhat of a hassle at times, unless you have an enormous kitbag. Obviously the big boys like interchangeable lenses, they can extract money from the customer in a myriad of ways. The challenge of working around a single lens is refreshing and makes you think more about what you're doing....the Fuji X100 proved that. <br>

Then there's the cost factor....good quality lenses are damn expensive plain and simple. What I'm saying is that to shoot on the run, travel light, not have to make the decision about lens focal length and shoot 4x5 on a budget with absolute focusing accuracy there ain't a better camera than a rangefinder. <br>

I defy anyone to tell me it's not a beautiful sight to behold....and a joy to use.</p><div></div>

[razzledog]

<p>And the lenses are Linhof select....LOL.</p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>" And the lenses are Linhof select....LOL"<br>

And they look like they are quite old ones at that. New ones seriously outperform those older versions. Even if they are not Linhof tested lenses.<br>

Old Linhof lenses were tested to the very best of their ability. But old lenses best are easily matched by current optics and Linhof selected new lenses far surpass those old ones.</p>

[razzledog]

<p>Bob...not everyone is looking for the latest and greatest in whiz bang lenses. Those old Xenotars are the favourites of a couple of French photographers who really like their characteristic performance. It sounds like you consider older lenses to be rubbish, therefore we should dump them all and buy the latest glass.<br /> It may well be the case that newer lenses are so perfect that they lack any character at all? What about the Aero Ektars..are they really all junk and should be replaced by the latest glass?<br /> When you say 'Linhof selected new lenses far surpass those old ones'... what do you mean, in what way do they surpass the oldies.. sharpness, resolution, coverage? I have an old Russian 300mm on my 8x10 that IMHO would run rings around any Linhof select lens when it comes to possessing character...I realise these old Ruskies may differ from one to the next, but luckily for me, I have BEST one.<br /> I'm talking portraiture here, not blinding sharpness. If I need perfectly precise image quality, I'm better to shoot digital with the new 5D and an L series lens....great shots will emerge, but any sign of character must be factored in afterwards and that's precisely what separates analogue from digital. <br /> The older (often uncoated/imperfect) glass just seems to nail it where the 'new' lenses may well lack any signature of their own.</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_salomon]

<p>"in what way do they surpass the oldies.. sharpness, resolution, coverage?"<br>

All, also contrast, reduction in flare, flatness across the field, bokeh. In all of the ways that lenses are tested today.<br>

But since no current lenses are 2.8 for large format they obviously can not compare to the effect of shooting a 2.8 lens at wde open or one stop down at f4. But at optimal apertures there is no way that a Xenotar will match the Apo Sironar-S of today.<br>

On the other hand large format lens manufacturers today do not make speed lenses. They make either analog or digital view camera lenses and an analog view camera lens will have much wider covering ability then the 2.8 Xenotar.</p>

<p>Some comments about the Xenotar 150mm from users:</p>

<h2 >"Re: How good is the 150mm f2.8 Xenotar</h2>

 

 

<blockquote >I used to have one which I regarded as a specialized item, very worthwhile for portrait work. The extra speed was great for selective focusing. Mine didn't have yellowing. My impression is that the radiation from thorium glass is extremely low even as compared to the backgound radiation we all get every day. If this is wrong, someone please correct me.<br /><br />On the other hand, the lens was large and heavy and had no particular virtues as a general-purpose lens. Since I wasn't doing much portrait work, I sold it."</blockquote>

<blockquote >"

<h2 >Re: How good is the 150mm f2.8 Xenotar</h2>

 

 

<blockquote >I've got an older Xenotar in a dial-set shutter. It's sharp enough, but only covers 4x5 with room for minimal movements. It's also subject to flare. But if you shoot most straigh on, as in landscapes, do work closer than infinity and guard agains stray light hitting the lens, you can get good shots with it."</blockquote>

<blockquote >"

<h2 >"Re: How good is the 150mm f2.8 Xenotar</h2>

 

 

<blockquote ><br />once I had a 3,5/135mm Xenotar. It was/is an excellent lens, with good sharpness even wide opend. I dropped it because it's lenses are made of radioactive glasses (thorium) and I didn't want to keep it in the house with my family. Hot lenses get yellow, like some Summicron, Repro-Claron, Quinon do. "</blockquote>

<blockquote >"

<h2 >Re: How good is the 150mm f2.8 Xenotar</h2>

 

 

<blockquote >In my obervation 135/3.5 Xenotars from the early 1950s often have a yellowing problem. I have never seen a 150/2.8 with tanned glass. <br /><br />One thing to look for are patches of faint discoloration between elements. I had a 150/2.8 Xenotar which had a bit of something between the elements. I sent it to John Van Stelton of Focal Point. He suggested that "moisture settled on the glass and caused a corrosion due to the heavy metal content of that cemented doublet and water". Fortunately he was able to removed the stain. I have seen this in several other Xenotars and even in a Japanese Xenotar-clone, so it may be relatively common.<br /><br />In any case, Xenotars are a bit soft and prone to flair wide open. Stopped down a stop or two they quickly become very sharp. <br /><br />As Ernest pointed out, they are very specialized lenses are are really quite useless as a general-purpose lens. At f5.6 and beyond I think you will find that a multi-coated Plasmat will be just as sharp (if not sharper), less prone to flair, significantly smaller, and of course will be much cheaper. So, if you don't HAVE to shoot faster than f5.6 buy yourself a plasmat. On the other hand, if you need a very fast relatively sharp lens, there is nothing like it."</blockquote>

<blockquote >"

<h2 >Re: How good is the 150mm f2.8 Xenotar</h2>

 

 

<blockquote >These are old posts I'm responding to but I have both the 150mm and the 135mm Xenotars in terrific condition and wanted to give a couple comments:<br /><br />1) Sharpness. Both are fabulous. Sharp as can be. There is a sense not of flare in common use but of less contrast than say the Symmar or the incredible Sironar-S. Now that I scan everything for printing, this is not a problem, a weird digital advance on old technology.<br /><br />2) Flare. Yes. Like it or not. They aren't multi-coated. That's the bottom line. Supposedly Zeiss makes the equivalent Planar at f/2.8 with multicoating for a lot of money.<br /><br />3) Radioactivity. Yes, many or these have thorium glass, and thorium is radioactive. But unless you ingest it, the alpha particles that thorium emits only go 1mm into the skin. If you hold the glass against it. Not a huge problem in normal life. <br /><br />4) Coverage. Limited. If you shoot at something closer than infinity, like portraits or still lifes, you'll find decent movement. Enough for normal shooting."</blockquote>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

</blockquote>