brian_c._ellis

A friend of mine was recently going through the same dilemmas that

your are. He solved it by purchasing a $175 round trip ticket to

Atlanta.In advance of his arrival he called a dealer there who sold

all of the camera brands he was considering (Quality Camera), asking

that they all be set out on tripods for his checking upon his arrival,

spent the day checking them out, bought one, and flew home with it

that night. I don't know where you're located but airline tickets are

pretty cheap these days and most major cities have at least one dealer

that carries many of the various large format brands.The price of an

airline ticket may seem expensive but in the long run it may not be so

expensive. I bought my first large format camera (a Linhof

Technikardan) in much the same way you're doing it (word of mouth,

reading, checking specs, etc.). I didn't like the Technikardan, sold

it at about a $300 loss, bought my second camera (a Tachihara), liked

it a lot but became enamored of the great solidity (?) and engineering

of a friend's Technika, sold the Tachihara at a $150 loss, and bought

the Technika. So I'm out of pocket $450 not to mention the cost of the

Linhof accessories I sold when I sold the Technikardan and now need to

buy back for the Technika. It would have been a lot cheaper just to

have bought an airline ticket. Think about it.

I used a Peak 4x loupe for years but saw so many people raving about

the Toyo loupe that I figured why not give it a try for $30. I really

didn't like it, only because it is round. The Peak loupe was square so

that you could get right up into the corners, which is often where

your problems, particularly vignetting, will show up. With the Toyo I

couldn't see in the extreme corners. I quit using it and went back to

the Peak loupe. The Peak loupe was a little more expensive - around

$50 or so as I recall. Personally I wouldn't use anything except a

square loupe for ground glass focusing. The folding focusing hood on

my Linhof Technika is totally useless except as a ground glass

protector so I don't use it and use a dark cloth (Darkroom

Innovations) instead, so length of the loupe wasn't a consideration

for me. The Peak is short and probably would be difficult to use with

a folding focusing hood.

Although the 150 mm G Claron is optimized for 1-1 it isn't a true

macro lens and actually works very well as a general purpose lens.I

use mine mostly as a general purpose lens but occasionally as a close

up lens and it does both quite well. It also has lots of coverage,

which is nice.

I have a vignetting problem with my 90 mm F 5.6 Super Angulon lens. I

plan to get the wide angle adapter that Lee recently started selling

but haven't done so yet so I don't know how much it will help, though

others say it works great. Very aggravating to me that Lee sold a

product with known vignetting problems for quite a few years before

doing something about it.

I don't think that macro photography is one of the strengths of large

format. There are several problems. First,in order to get even to a

1-1 magnification the lenses tend to be on the long side - 150

and up. Secondly, you generally have a very long bellows

extension to get to 1-1, so it becomes difficult to see the

subject with so little light getting to the ground glass. Third,

large format in general can be cumbersome and somewhat unwieldy

when trying to focus on a flower petal that is three inches from

the lens. Fourth, because of the shallow depth of field you tend to

use very small apertures and because of this as well as

the long bellows extension, often end up with really long shutter

speeds. If you're photographing something that moves, the slightest

breeze can ruin your photograph and when you're using shutter speeds

of 15, 20, 30, or more seconds, which is by no means unusual, the

likelihood that a breeze will occur sometime during the exposure is

pretty great. None of these problems is insurmountable and I'm sure

some people do a lot of macro work with large format but personally I

wouldn't get into large format with the idea of doing macro work with

it. You might use large format for landscapes, and maybe portraits,

but stick with your medium or 35 mm formats for the macro work. Just

my opinion. Brian

Andrea - I don't know what experience, if any, the other people

who responded to your inquiry have had with Tachiharas but mine has

been an excellent camera and a terrific value for the money. Its well

made, sufficiently sturdy for any weather in which I'm likely to be

able to photograph, very attractive finish, decent movements and, best

of all, very light for an 8x10. The only drawback for some people is

that with the double extension model the bellows is on the short side.

Tachihara makes a triple extension model but I've never seen it and I

assume it is somewhat bulkier and heavier than the double extension

version. FWIW, each year a magazine here in the U.S. called "Photo

Techniques" publishes a list of what they consider to be the 25 best

cameras presently made. The Tachihara was included in this year's

list. I mention this, not to suggest that you should buy the camera

because it was inlcuded in somebody's list, but because somebody who

is supposed to know something about cameras thinks it is a pretty good

camera and you certainly don't need to apologize for being interested

in it. I became intersted in it after taking a John Sexton workshop

and seeing the one used by a terrific photographer who at the time

was John's principal assistant. I would take the previous responses

with several large grains of salt - one of the responders posts to

this group fairly often and seems to be more interested in trying to

be clever than in providing objective and accurate information. I

don't know the size of Sinar's lens boards so I can't answer that

question.

Bosscreens are sold by Bromwell Marketing. The owner, Ted Bromwell, is

a very nice guy and very helpful. You can get contact information from

Bromwell's advertisements in "Shutterbug." I bought mine about three

years ago and it cost around $150. It was the most expensive of the

options I was considering but I thought it was well worth the price.

Technically it isn't an enhancer in that it doesn't brighten the light

but it is considerably better than a plain ground glass and is much

easier to focus when using a loupe than is a fresnel lens. I live in

Florida and used it during the summer, taking no precautions against

excessive heat that I wouldn't take with any camera equipment, and had

no problems. I certainly don't think you'd need to keep it in an ice

chest unless you plan to drive to Death Valley in August and park for

a few days with the camera in the car or something similar to that. If

you normally take reasonable precautions against overheating film and

equipment, I think those normal precautions should be sufficient for

the Bosscreen.

I use and generally like the Lee system. I too have had problems with

vignetting when using a 90mm lens and a "normal" adapter. I guess I'll

have to get the wide angle adapter, which Lee didn't make when I bougt

my stuff several years ago. If you consider a polarizer filter to be

mandatory (as I do), you should be aware of the fact that the Lee

polarizer cost about $150 when I bought mine several years ago and

maybe more now. At the time I bought mine Lee was the only company

that made a 4x4 polarizer so if you wanted to use a polarizer with the

Lee system you had to buy theirs. Maybe Cokin or somebody else makes a

less expensive 4x4 polarizer today, I've had no need to check.

Multi-coated lenses usually will reflect two different colors when

placed at an angle to a light source and moved around, a purplish

color and a greenish color. In the lenses I own that I know are

multi-coated, these two colors can be clearly seen as the lens is

moved around at an angle to a light source. I thought, but am not

certain, that if you see only a purplish color the lens is single

coated and if you see no color at all the lens is uncoated. However, I

don't own any lenses that are uncoated or single coated so I cannot be

sure of this. Perhaps someone else can confirm this or correct me.

I use the Fuji 400 mm telephoto lens and it's excellent. I've read in

magazines and on the net that Fuji in general is the equal of the

other three makers. As someone else mentioned, Fuji pulled its US

distributorship some years ago so the lenses, while available (from

The F Stops Here and Midwest Photo Exchange and probably other

places), aren't as accessable as the other brands. It took about a

month to get mine (from The F Stops Here) and I think that's about

normal.

The November, 1989 issue of "View Camera" magazine included a very

brief, and not terribly useful, article entitled "Buying the Used

Linhof Technika." Copies can be ordered from the magazine but, apart

from listing the specs for Technikas III through Master, the article

isn't very good for information about the differences among the

different Technika models, the article in Tuan's Large Format Home

Page is much better). Anyhow, here are the specs for the Technika V as

given in the article: Bellows extension: 400 mm; Camera back

extension: 35 mm; angles of drop bed: 15 and 30 degrees; max front

rise 45 mm; max front fall 6 mm; front shift (each way) 25 mm; lens

board tilt 15 degrees forward, 15 degrees backward; lens board swing

(each way) 15 degrees; back swing (each of four ways) 15 degrees. If

you compare these to the Master specs you'll see a few differences but

the only one of any significance, IMHO, is the lens board back and

front tilts (30 degrees with the Master, 15 degrees with the Tech V).

Hope this is the info you were looking for. Brian

I remember reading an article several years ago, I believe in the

now-defunct "Camera and Darkroom" magazine or perhaps in "Photo

Techniques" (under its old name), in which the author performed tests

on the requisite wash times after using various clearing agents. If I

remember correctly he found that 15 minutes was adequate after using

Heico on fiber base paper. Just to be safe I use 20 to 30 minutes. Two

minutes is way too short.

I've read numerous complaints at various net sites about film spacing

problems with the P67/ The weak link in the P67 seems to be the film

advance/shutter cocking mechanism. In some cases irregular film

spacing has been a prelude to complete failure of the system. In my

case I've had the camera for roughly four years now and it has seen

limited use - perhaps 150 rolls maximum have gone through it. In that

time the film advance has failed twice. When it happened the second

time I posted a question in rec.photo to other P67 users, asking if

they had encountered the same problem. Many people hadn't but enough

had to make it clear that mine wasn't an isolated problem. Since

Pentax repaired it the second time it hasn't failed but I'm getting

some irregular spacing now.

As others have noted, you stretch the cloth over the rear standard

only. I believe that Darkroom Innovations makes two versions of the

cloth, one for field cameras and one for studio cameras. Assuming

you have a field camera and the field version of the Darkroom

Innovations cloth, when you stretch the elastic over the standard

the openings on the left and right sides of the cloth should allow you

to reach the controls (such as the control for back tilt) on the left

and right sides of the back standard. If you're having trouble

operating these controls you might want to check with Darkroom

Innovations and make sure you have the correct version of the cloth

for your camera. As a matter of interest, the cloth was designed by

Phil Davis' wife and I agree with the others who have posted here -

it's a vast improvement over the traditional dark cloth.

I own the Fuji 400 F9 telephoto lens. I haven't found it to be

significantly more difficlt to use than a normal lens. I think that

the things you read about the nodal point being in front of the lens

and the effect of this in operating a camera with the lens sometimes

make it seem to be more of a problem than it is in practice. Certainly

tilting it doesn't degrade the image.

I've never used the Tele Arton but I do own a Fuji 400 telephoto.

Before buying it I was concerned about some of the problems with

telephoto lenses alluded to in the previous message but in practice I

haven't found it to be significantly more difficult to focus or

otherwise use than a normal lens. My camera has base tilts so I was

used to re-focusing a good bit. If yours has axis tilts maybe the

telephoto lens would take some getting used to but I don't think you'd

have any major problem with it.

I have the Condit system and it does work very well. However, it was

fairly expensive. As I recall, the punch and frame were in the $400

range. The punch I ordered can be used with anything from 35mm to

5x7. The punch for 4x5 alone was a little less but not much. Having

now used it a good bit I realize that aligning the mask with the

negative isn't all that difficult a task and there are other, far less

expensive, ways of doing it. So I think if I had it to do over again I

probably wouldn't spend the money for the Condit system, excellent as

it is.

I agree that you need a decent dark cloth for openers, and the one

sold by Darkroom Innovations is excellent. Next I would try the

fresnel lens just because of its price. See how you like it - if

things still look too dim you could try the Bosscreen but you need to

realize that the Bosscreen strictly speaking isn't a "bright screen."

What it does is spread the light out evenly around the ground glass (a

non-technical description), thus allowing you to see and compose

somewhat better than with just a ground glass. I had the Bosscreen on

my Technikardan and it was a big improvement over the plain ground

glass that came with the camera. For me, the plain ground glass was

useless - I had to keep moving my head around to find the bright

spot and I couldn't view the entire scene at once and so couldn't

compose anything.l The Bosscreen is also better than a fresnel lens

when using a loupe because the loupe enlarges the circles in the

fresnel lens, thus making it a little more difficult to focus. Again,

though, if the fresnel lens is only $30, and the Bosscreen is around

$150, why not start with the fresnel lens?

No one mentioned the 75mm shift lens. Apart from its shift

capabilities, which can be useful with trees or other vertical

subjects, it'slens when used as a straight medium wide angle lens

(about the equivalent of a 35mm lens in the 35mm format). I carry the

Pentax 45mm lens and it's also very good but lately I've been using

the 75mm more. The stop down metering isn't a problem once you get

used to it, which takes only a few shots. The only disadvntage (apart

from price) is that it's large and heavy so I leave it out if I'm

going on a long hike but for a half day or so of hiking it's fine.

This question is ancient history by www standards but for the benefit

of others who may have the same or similar problems, I'll post this

response.

<p>

The film advance system in the P67 is its Achilles heel. I don't know

why but complaints about irregular spacing, overlapping picture

frames, and outright failures are very common if you read the

different medium format sources on the web. Actually, if all you have

is irregular spacing between frames that's the best case scenario. The

next best is to have two pictures overlap - at least the other 8 or

18 are o.k. The worst case is complete failure of the film

advance/shutter cocking mechanism stops as you try to make the second

photograph on your once a year trip to Utah. That's what happened to

me. It was the second time that had happened in the three years I

owned the camera. The first time occurred a few months after the

warranty expired and the camera was repaired by a local repairman. It

worked fine for about a year after that repair, until my Utah

experience. After the second failure I sent it to Pentax for repair.

They charged around $250 as I recall but it has worked fine in the

year or so since then, although I do get some irregular spacing

between frames. I might add that I rarely use the camera (I do mostly

large format work) and I bought it new. I also am extremely careful to

advance the film slowly and evenly. Hopefully whatever causes this

problem with these cameras will be cured in the new P67II.

I've owned (to the tune of about $300 used as I recall) the Linhof

folding focusing hood and it was useless. The sides were made of

fabric and so you couldn't press your head firmly against it to keep

out the light. I've seen a friend's Calumet reflex viewing hood and it

was nice but it was too bulky for me and if you don't mind the upside

down inverted image you probably wouldn't want to pay the price

of a reflex hood anyhow. Based on my Linhof experience, I'd suggest

that you try out whatever you are thinking of before buying it. I

also second the Darkroom Innovations "darkcloth" recommendation.

That's what I use and I like it. It's a little more trouble to put

on the camera than a conventional darkcloth but once it's on it's a

delight. It's also much more compact and light weight than a

conventional dark cloth.

I'll second some of the favorable comments about the Tachihara. I've

been using mine for about two years now and I think it's an excellent

camera. It is well constructed and quite solid. I've never had any

stability problems. The finish is attractive, it's easy and quick to

set up and take down, and best of all it's light. The weight savings

with the camera, plus the ability to use a lighter tripod and head,

really makes a difference when you're walking. The idea that B&H

doesn't carry it because it doesn't meet their standards is, IMHO, BS.

I like B&H and buy many things from them but I doubt that they test

every product they carry. The only drawback to the camera is the

relatively short bellows extension - 13 inches. I got around this by

buying a 400mm Fuji telephoto lens which works fine but was somewhat

epensive. If you want to do 1-1 macro work you can use the 150mm G

Claron lens. It's a good lens but I agree with those who have said

that using a 4x5 camera for macro work is perhaps not the best idea -

I bought the G Claron for that purpose but found that the additional

time and trouble involved aren't justified by any significant increase

in quality as compared with medium format macro work (at least for me

- others may disagree). I would recommend the Tachihara without

reservation. Even if you later decide that you want a Wisner or other

similar camera for some reason, you can always keep the Tachihara and

use it for camping trips or long hikes. It weighs about half of what

the Wisner Traditional and Technicals weigh. Finally, I agree with

those who recommend buying it new. If you read "Shutterbug" you see

that used prices are all over the place - Del's and I believe KEH

recently were advertising used Tachiharas for a higher price than

Adorama's new price advertised in the same issue!

I'm far from being any kind of an optics expert but I do know that

there is no ANSI or other industry-wide standard for determining when

a lens is an "APO" lens and when it isn't. A lens is an APO lens if

the manufacturer decides to call it an APO lens. Therefore, as someone

else has pointed out, the "APO" designation, by itself, means very

little.

I don't know if you're seriously considering a purchase of the older

version of the 55mm lens or not but if you are be sure to at

least physically look at it first, or buy it with a right to return

for any reason if you don't like it. I say this because it is a

really, really big and heavy lens (as you might suspect from the 100mm

lens diameter). I had always heard good things about this lens and

considered buying one until I saw one at a camera show. For me, it

was just too big and heavy to be practical in the field. You might

very well feel differently, as others do, but at least look at it

before you buy (or make sure it can be returned).

Gary - Re the comments you've heard about the TTL meter - wrong,

wrong, double quadruple wrong. I use the TTL meter extensively and

have been amazed at how accurate it is considering the fact that it's

not matrix metering, it's not even center weighted metering, it's just

a good old primitive match needle system. Nevertheless, to my

surprise it works very well. When I first bought it I tried taking two

photographs of the same subject, one with the exposure based on the

TTL meter and the other with the exposure based on my Pentax Digital

Spot Meter. I seldom saw a signifcant improvement with the hand held

meter and I now use it only when I know I'll be able to shoot a whole

roll in the same light and can develop the roll to zone system

standards. Otherwise (which is most of the time) I use the TTL meter.

I would guess that the person who is telling you how bad it is has

never used it.