erin_hoffstetter Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>Hello,<br> I am looking to purchase a 4x5 field camera and lens and am not sure where to start. I need something that is lightweight, durable and easy to travel with. <br> For the lens, I will be mostly shooting environmental portraits and need something a little faster than the rest and of superb quality, I don't mind spending less on the camera and splurging for the lens (looking to spend around $1,500-2,000 or less).<br> A few cameras I have looked at are the Toyo 45A, 45C and 45AII. I've owned a Toyo G before and liked it, but it is going to be too heavy and cumbersome to bring out in the field. <br> I'm not looking to constantly fiddle with it or have a ton of features and accessories, I just want to get out and SHOOT.</p> <p>Thanks in advance for your input!</p> <p>Sincerely, Erin</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Canham 4x5 DL camera and Rodenstock 90mm f/4.5 Grandagon-N or Nikon 90mm f/4.5 -SW. I had that combination stand up to jet blast from a 747. (But didn't shoot until the plane had taxied away.) for field work it's build is as rugged and simple as an AK-47 but as a camera is as precise as a sniper's rifle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>Environmental portraits = no movements required. So just about any field camera will work. Personally I like the cosmetic appeal of a wood 4x5 field camera, if you're going to shoot large format and be "old fashioned" it's nice to have a camera that looks the part. Just about any wood field camera will do, but my short list would be a Chamonix or a Shen Hao. Chamonix is probably lighter/better for ease of traveling with, and half the weight of the Toyo you were looking at.</p> <p>For lenses, don't worry about buying something high end. The differences between a $200 lens and a $1000 lens are not easily visible with portraits and are not worth the extra money for your purposes. Look at modern lenses in Copal shutters, get something with a f/5.6 maximum aperture - shallow depth of field can be nice for portraits and depending on the light conditions it's nice to have the extra aperture speed. Avoid lenses with a Copal 3 shutter - they are huge/heavy. Look at lenses from Fuji/Nikon/Schneider/Rodenstock - all will work well for your purposes. Perhaps pick two lenses, one medium/wide and one slight telephoto. Personnally I'd go for a 135mm f/5.6 for a semi-wide environmental lens and a 210mm f/5.6 for a slightly tighter field of view. Both should be able to be purchased for around $200-300 each used. If I had my personal preferences I'd choose the Rodenstock APO Sironar N series for the budget concious, but like I said you won't go wrong choosing any of the lenses from the four major manufacturers.</p> <p>Hope this helps!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisSpeaker Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>My only addition is don't go with a Toyo 45C. Toyo A or AII would be my recommendation since a 45C is basically the size/weight of a 45G.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erin_hoffstetter Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>Thank you for the responses!<br> Chris, I'm not a pro at large format so knowing what is out there can be a little difficult, so it was tempting to just stick with what I know (Toyo) although it seems I might be better off with something else.<br> Sheldon, thanks a lot for all that information, you've given me some great things to consider and I will probably end up saving a lot of money and getting a great setup that fits my needs. Do you have any recommendations for something slightly wider than the 135? I usually shoot between 50 and 80 on my medium format 645 or 6x7 cameras, something similar to this would be great.<br> Ellis, I will definitely look into that set up!</p> <p>Any other suggestions are still welcome!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisSpeaker Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 <p>Just FYI here is my Toyo/Omega view 45C. Like I said it's a huge studio camera. Usable in the field but I don't really recommend it for what you are describing since you really need little to no movements.<br> In the Toyo family I would go for the 45A or AII type for what you are describing or maybe, if you can find one, a VX125 for the telescoping monorail.<br> Link to toyo's web site: http://www.toyoview.com/ProductInfo/ProductInfo.html<br> As to lens. Hum what Ellis said - I have used the Nikon 90mm f4.5 SW for architecture and they are excellent. Should work great for environmental portraits too.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochen_S Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 <p>I'm inexperienced as a LF shooter. - I really wanted stuff, got a monaorail first and figured out that I need a field camera.<br> I ended with a Linhof Technika kit. - Sorry, I don't know what you pay in weight compared to a Toyo field. - I believe the viewfinder & rangemeter option is really nice to have and makes the camera much more versatile. - I read of nature photographers chopping off their rangemeters and using the camera just as a field camera and it seems the scene splits over groundglas purism vs. press camera handling and I haven't done tests to proof if the latter is working well enough, but it seems worth researching & considering.<br> Known issue of affordable Linhofs: Their bellows. You are also limited to kits on the market with the models where RF cams were custom ground to go with an individual lens on that camera.<br> For my own portrait needs I feel somewhat confident to susbstitute a 6x7 SLR with the Technika & rollfilm back / holder (I have both).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJG Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 <p>For the most part going a little wider than 135 usually means very large lenses like a Schneider 120 Super Angulon or a Rodenstock 115 Grandgon. These are both great lenses ( I have the Grandagon in Calumet disguise) but they are large and heavy to put on a wooden field camera. There may be other options, but those are the relatively modern high quality options that I come up with.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 <p>For slightly wider than the 135, you've got a couple good options. Fuji makes a nice little 125mm f/5.6 which can be found used for a very reasonable price, under $200. That will be pretty close in field of view to your 50mm lens on 645. If you want wider, I'd look at the 90mm lenses... the two that Ellis mentioned above (Rodenstock 90mm f/4.5 Grandagon-N or Nikon 90mm f/4.5 SW) are excellent if a little bigger/heavier more expensive than the small 125mm lens.</p> <p>One thing I'd point out is that wider focal lengths like a 90mm start to be more difficult to compose and focus with. The ground glass is dimmer, focusing is harder to be precise with and they are just a bit tougher to use in real world conditions due to the way that the light projects at the ground glass at off angles making a hot spot. Not that you couldn't use them, I'd just personally much rather shoot semi-wide with a 125mm for portraits rather than a 90mm for convenience sake.</p> <p>If you went with a 125mm lens and liked slightly wider focal lengths I'd suggest a 125/180 two lens kit. If you went with a 90mm lens then maybe a 90/150 two lens kit. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB_Gallery Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 I shoot 4x5, fun stuff, I use a Chamonix 45N2. But for EP's I would just stick with medium format, far less prone to pre-exposure dust and easier to nail the shot. Not to mention I just got done making a set of 20x24 darkroom prints from medium format and they are stunningly clear and low in grain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 <p>Agree with you about dust being the bane of a large format shooters existence. I still think it's worth shooting LF for environmental portraiture -the "look" of large format is just darn cool. I've got a Hasselblad and it's great, but I like shooting environmental portraits with my 8x10 camera more. :) </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 <p>I use a Chamonix 045N and it is an all around great camera. Very light, very solid. I do shoot paid portraits with it, but only using vintage lenses. I have a collection of lenses from 1845-1860 and a second collection of lenses from 1905-1930. If I wasn't shooting portraits with these historical lenses I wouldn't be using 4x5 though. The whole thing is the results from the old lenses, not so much the format.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 <p>Erin, my advice is to go for a metal field camera. If you like Toyo, get an AII, AX or A, depending on your budget. I think there is also a cheap versions made in plastic.<br /> Don`t get fooled with extensive movements or capabilities; most LF cameras are perfectly capable for "normal" use. If you need extreme capabilities, just sell it or add a specialist camera.<br /> Same for the weight; personally, I`d go for a really fast and comfortable to use camera. Lightweight monorails use to be hard, if not too slow to set up, or have too basic focusing systems, etc. They are really lightweight, that`s good, but I`d not hesitate to carry a bit extra weight in a more practical camera; at the end, field cameras are by far the most usable ones. Just in my experience.</p> <p>About wider than 135mm: You said <em>"... superb quality, I don't mind spending less on the camera and splurging for the lens... " </em>So you`re referring to the Super Symmar 110XL. It is not so big (XL Angulons are big), and of superb quality, a pleasure to use. My most used lens. In the next step, I`d get any 90, Grandagon N, Nikkor SW or Super Angulon instead (if you ask me, I prefer Rodenstocks), in their faster version. They are reasonable sized to my taste.</p> <p>Think that you could like to have more lenses, so I`d double focals at first (say, 75, 135/150, 270/300), this way you`ll have lenses for almost whatever, or start with intermediate lengths (90/110, 210), maybe the most typical approach.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 <p><em>"Erin, my advice is to go for a metal field camera..." </em>- I`m refering to a <em>drop bed</em> type camera. The term "field" is too wide.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 <p>If we are talking portraits here, the universal favorite of my customers is the Chamonix 4x5 with a 240mm Heliar lens. (Mine is pre-WW2 and uncoated.) The Heliar was probably the finest portrait lens ever made and has a very distinctive look. The problem with modern lenses is you'll simply get a result that looks much like a digital camera. Sometime like a Heliar (or Dagor) will give you something unique with much more charecter. Portraits aren't so much about sharpness as they are about setting a mood. You'll find that portrait length Heliar lenses have held their value very well, and there is a reason for that. They deliver!</p> <p>Kent in SD</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 <p> The Petzval was the first portrait lens, and they were the most popular portrait lens from 1840 to about 1910. Here's what a Ross Petzval, 6 inch, made in 1845 looks like.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sknowles Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 <p>I've been using a Horseman HD which folds into the size of a lunch box and it, film, ballhead, light meter and 2 lenses fit in a LowePro bag or backpack. The HD doesn't have back movements so everything is done with the front and covers all my needs. The only limitation is the bellows which limits the range of lenses from 75mm to about 270mm (old 300mm lenses might work). And while I love using it, health reasons of late have restricted my use so I'm open to selling it and some lenses (all Schneider).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erin_hoffstetter Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 <p>Wow, what a wealth of information from you all. Thank you! It seems that the Chamonix is quite popular in this thread which means I will definitely need to look into that.<br> Kent, you bring up some really great points about portraits setting the mood and using the lenses to create mood effects, otherwise the format really won't lend a hand to that.<br> I'm looking for lenses that will really heighten the moments of my environmental portraits and vintage lenses such as the ones you mentioned seem like something really worth looking into.<br> Jose, also some really good points in terms of field vs. monorails and also those lens recommendations are really useful. <br> Sheldon, I'm really interested in what you said about the "look" of large format, can you elaborate? I really want this investment to be worthwhile and different from the look and feel of my medium format cameras. It sounds like you know more about this and I would love to hear!<br> Chris, good to know that you agree with Ellis said in terms of lenses to look into!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 <p>What I see as the "look" of large format is a combination of 2 things. First, the bigger the format the shallower the depth of field, especially as you start focusing out to middle distances. Second, the larger the format the less you need to enlarge the negative so a lens will generally be sharper/more contrasty at the plane of focus. The combination of these two things gives a subject that can really pop out of the image in a visually striking way. It's why I shoot 8x10, strictly for the bigger format. The second "look" issue is the one of vintage lenses and the way that they render the image. There are endless options out there, depending on what you're after.</p> <p>I personally have one lens that is more "classic" in it's rendering (an older Dagor) and one lens that is newer (a Fuji 300mm f/5.6 in a Copal 3 shutter). Both have a sync port so I'm able to use strobes with either. Here are some example photos from 8x10 film, if you're interested in the "look". They are only 1000 pixels wide so it's not as apparent as it is on a bigger screen or in a nice print. My apologies that they're all family pics. :-) </p> <p>Modern Fuji lens with strobe, shot wide open at f/5.6.<br> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/KidsPortrait8x10_zps0fa34a21.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Old/cheap Ilex Paragon f/4.5 lens, wide open with ambient light. <br> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/IlexParagon_zps6d0b7916.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="799" /></p> <p>Modern Fuji lens, wide open at f/5.6 ambient light. </p> <p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Scan-140529-0001_zpsab79d76a.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Modern 240mm Rodenstock, wide open at f/5.6 with strobe.<br> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/ElisePortrait_zpsacee4343.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="751" /></p> <p>Old Dagor lens, wide open at f/6.3, ambient light. <br> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Scan-140323-0001_zps949e2a4a.jpg" alt="" width="820" height="1000" /></p> <p>Old Dagor f/6.3 lens, with strobe.<br> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Scan-140319-0001_zps10fe9531.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="810" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_kasaian4 Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 <p>How much are you planning to spend on this?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn McCreery Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I went through two Linhofs and a Toyo looking for the perfect field camera that I could carry on hikes. My final, and best, choice was a metal Wista 45N with a rotating back, plus a Rodenstock Sironar N 135mm lens (or Caltar IIN lens, same thing). The lens was chosen because it is compact and need not be removed to fold the camera. The 45N is not the latest model, but provides a full range of movements, is extremely well made, and is available for quite reasonable prices used on eBay ($500 or so), as is the lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now