david_haardt1

Thank you all very much for your answers. I just got an email from Canon Canada telling me the nearest service centre and already sent the camera off. Fingers crossed that this is indeed the problem, I'm very much looking forward to getting my camera back soon ;-) Have a great afternoon!

Thank you, Brian!

Hi Ray,

 

Good to hear that your camera went back to normal. Unfortunately it didn't work with mine, I just tried it. However, I just read on the web that there is a known problem with the A70, and several other Canon cameras, that the electrical connections to the CCD come off, with symptoms similar to mine. I just emailed Canon Canada, let's see what happens!

 

Dave

<p>

Hi everybody,

</p>

 

<p>

I own a Canon PowerShot A70 since almost four years and never had any problems

with it. Unfortunately, when I wanted to take a few photos yesterday, all I

got was black with green stripes, similar to <a

href="http://www.dcresource.com/forums/attachment.php?

attachmentid=10147&stc=1&d=1141912647" target="_blank">this</a>.

</p>

 

<p>

However, I can still display two photos saved on my memory card which I made a

few days earlier -- so it can't be the display or the memory card. I suspect

that the CCD gave up, do you think I'm right? I suspect that a repair is

useless since a replacement camera could be bought relatively cheaply?

</p>

 

<p>

Many thanks for your help.

</p>

 

<p>

Best wishes,

</p>

 

<p>

Dave

</p>

Last message tonight, just to give you some motivation that it can indeed work easily.

 

This photo was only my 51st large format shot ever, taken just a few weeks after having bought my first large format camera (Graflex Super Speed Graphic), on a Scotland trip:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/595238

 

Another photo from that trip:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/618168&size=lg

 

All of that was possible with the help of the web since I didn't know anybody around using large format. The web is a great source to learn the arcane secrets of large format photography ;-)

 

David

What I should have wrote as well: Large format can be extremely satisfying. Since everything takes more time, you are much more likely to take your time. As a result, the proportion of good shots will typically be much larger than in any other format.

 

I also like the somewhat archaic appeal of large format: your camera is simply a light-tight bellows with a lens plate with shutter and diaphragm in front and a ground glass/film holder on the back.

 

It's easy to "understand" how such a camera works, and therefore the experience is much more direct that when using an electronic does-everything where it remains a mystery /how/ it does everything.

 

David

Hello,

 

In my opinion the difference between large format and medium format is /much/ larger than between medium format and all smaller formats. I don't necessarily mean the difference in quality, but more the difference in handling and usage.

 

Sheet film which has to be loaded into film holders in total darkness. Since you probably won't buy and/or carry around dozens of film holders, you always need a changing bag or even a changing tent (not necessary for 4x5" as far as I'm concerned). That's one of these handling differences I mean.

 

More detailed explanation: Basically, you buy a cardboard box with 10 or 25 or 50 (or more) sheets of film which have a notch so that you can identify which side the emulsion is in total darkness. You have a film holder which is basically a light-tight flat thingy into which you can load two sheets of film in total darkness. Each side has a dark slide similar to medium format film backs. I used six film backs (i.e., 12 shots) when shooting 4x5". As soon as that limit is reached (or if you want to change film) it's time for the changing bag.

 

There is an absolutely great web site about large format photography from which I learned /everything/ which I needed to start shooting: http://www.largeformatphotography.info Film loading is explained here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/loading.html

 

Since you live in Berlin, you have a great store where you can buy all things related to large format at good prices: http://www.fotoimpex.de

 

One important question is: what are you going to do with your negatives/slides? A 4x5" enlarger is very large, very heavy, and (usually) expensive. That's one of the reasons why I'm moving to 8x10" -- here, contact prints are sufficient (and have an even larger image quality).

 

In my opinion, quality differences can be noticed -- the colours/tones are richer, a certain three-dimensionality emerges when looking at a 4x5" slide or a print from a 4x5" negative. Portraiture makes perfectly sense in large format and there are many great photographers who used and use it for this field. I recommend you take a look at Ansel Adams's books, in particular "The Negative". A great "textbook" by one of the greatest landscape photographers ever which contains an awful lot of useful information for large format.

 

Good luck for your venture and best wishes from Austria,

 

David

Correction of the list: the Toho weighs 3.4 kg, not 3.9 kg.

 

(The 3.4 kg weight already includes the maximum monorail length -- with the shortest monorail length, it weighs only 3.0 kg.)

 

David

<p>

8x10 cameras on the lighter side (4.5 kg / 9.9 lbs or less):

</p>

 

<p>

<ul>

<li>Arca-Swiss F -classic C: 3.9 kg</li>

<li>Bender View: 2.6 kg</li>

<li>Canham JMC810: 4.1 kg</li>

<li>Canham Light-Weight MQC810: 3.8 kg</li>

<li>Canham Standard T6810: 4.3 kg</li>

<li>Gandolfi Traditional G810 (with or without front swing): 4.0 kg</li>

<li>Gandolfi Variant GV810/L2 (LW or SW): 4.0 kg</li>

<li>Gowland All Movement: 3.6 kg</li>

<li>Osaka/Tachihara/Wista: 4.5 kg</li>

<li>Phillips Compact II: 3.9 kg</li>

<li>Phillips Explorer: 2.7 kg</li>

<li>Shen Hao FCL810-A: 4.4 kg</li>

<li>Toho FC-810: 3.9 kg</li>

<li>Wehman Field Camera: 4.0 kg</li>

</ul>

(multiply kg by 2.2 to get lbs)

</p>

 

<p>

I've compared the movements these cameras offer, and in my opinion for landscape photography the Toho and the Wehman are ideal (caveat: I couldn't find the specifications of the Gowland). Canham and Phillips may also be interesting, but are much more expensive. From what I gather from the web the Toho and the Wehman also seem to be very good in their build quality.

</p>

 

<p>

Comparison between Toho and Wehman:

</p>

 

<p>

<table border="1">

 

<tr>

<td>Name</td>

<td>Price</td>

<td>Weight</td>

<td>Front rise</td>

<td>Front fall</td>

<td>Front shift</td>

<td>Front swing</td>

<td>Front base tilt</td>

<td>Front centre tilt</td>

<td>Rear rise</td>

<td>Rear fall</td>

<td>Rear shift</td>

<td>Rear swing</td>

<td>Rear base tilt</td>

<td>Rear centre tilt</td>

<td>Bellows draw</td>

<td>Dimensions</td>

<td>Comments</td>

</tr>

 

<tr>

<td><a href="http://www.toho-machine.co.jp" target="_blank">Toho</a> <a href="http://www.toho-machine.co.jp/FC-810.htm" target="_blank">FC-810</a></td>

<td>2750</td>

<td>3.4</td>

<td>55</td>

<td>88</td>

<td>35</td>

<td>360</td>

<td>90</td>

<td> </td><td>102</td><td>40</td><td>65</td>

<td class=xl28>360</td>

<td>90</td>

<td> </td>

<td>80-750</td>

<td> </td>

<td><a href="http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=149" target="_blank">Badger Graphic</a>; read <a href="http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm" target="_blank">4x5" review</a></td>

</tr>

 

<tr>

<td><a href="http://www.wehmancamera.com/camera.html" target="_blank">Wehman Field Camera</a></td>

<td>2050</td>

<td>4.0</td>

<td>51</td>

<td>76</td>

<td>25/25</td>

<td>bellows</td>

<td>45/90 (?)</td>

<td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td>

<td>25/25</td>

<td>90/36 (?)</td>

<td> </td>

<td>-775</td>

<td>305x330x91</td>

<td> </td>

</tr>

 

</table>

Swing and tilt in degrees, weight in kg. All other measures in mm.

</p>

 

<p>

The conclusions which I have drawn from my lists and tables: The Toho is lighter and has more movements, but is one third more expensive [the prices which I have calculated are EU euro prices with import tax and duties from the US but relative prices should be the same for US residents], bulkier, and more fragile when packed. So now I just have to decide between the two and save the money ;)

</p>

 

<p>

Hope this helps,

</p>

 

<p>

David

</p>

"It is made in China. The Chinese have openly threatened use of Nuclear weapons against the US.

Boycott anything Chinese."

 

So why do you still live in a country that has not only threatened to kill civilians but has actually recently killed thousands of them in Iraq? Questions over questions...

 

David

"The 45SU is not worth the extra purchase price over the other Ebony cameras, as it won't produce better pictures, but it's nice to own and easy to use and will hold it's value equal to the best of the rest."

 

Well, but if you take this comment to the extreme you should only care about the lens -- a photo taken with an Ebony will not look any better than the same photo taken with a Tachihara ;)

 

I agree with those who suggested that it's a good idea to buy a budget large format camera first before planning on the bought-for-life system without any large format experience.

 

I'm currently planning which 8x10 camera to buy, having previous experience with 4x5 (Super Speed Graphic), and here's what I did: I created a table including information on price, weight, movements (front rise, front fall, front shift, front swing, front base tilt, front centre tilt, rear rise, rear fall, rear shift, rear swing, rear base tilt, and rear centre tilt), bellows draw, and dimensions of Arca-Swiss, Bender, Cambo, Canham, Ebony, Gandolfi, Gowland, Horseman, Lotus, Osaka, Phillips, Shen Hao, sinar, Tachihara, Toho, Toyo, Wehman, Wisner, Wista and Zone VI 8x10 cameras and then decided to think about important criteria for me: I need a relatively light-weight camera for field work, and I absolutely need reasonable front rise, front tilt, and rear tilt. Rear swing would be a good addition for landscape work, the second-most important addition would be rear rise, and the least important addition rear fall. This left me with the Lotus and the Toho in the top group, Ebony in the second group, Canham and Wehman in the third group, and Phillips in the fourth group. If I want lots of movements, the Toho offers the same as the Lotus and is much cheaper and much lighter (but somewhat bulkier since it's a monorail). If I want movements which are perfectly sufficient for landscape work but not that extensive, the Wehman would be the best deal. Apart from the movements, the Toho is lighter but costs one third more than the Wehman, is bulkier, and more fragile when transported.

 

Such a systematic comparison may not be right for everybody, but it can be a real eye-opener.

 

For instance, you can read quite often that people used to metal cameras are disappointed by the precision and smoothness of Ebony cameras. Moreover, Ebonys are quite heavy compared to many other cameras. In that sense it might be useful to start from objective requirements for your type of work rather than buying the most expensive brand available.

 

Now of course you'll say that you don't know which movements you will need -- and this is the problem without any large format experience. That's why starting out with a less expensive camera may be wise. Extensive rentals are very expensive, and "wasting" 500 dollars for a budget camera is certainly cheaper than wasting several thousand dollars on a top camera when later on you might discover that it doesn't include the movements you need, or that it's too heavy for your purposes, or that you'd prefer a more rugged camera.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

(Keep in mind that 17cm = 6.7", so a 5x7 camera is definitely wide enough to fit a 6x17 back, and since the Canham back has been made specifically for the Canham 5x7s, also the question of mechanically fitting the back to the camera back should be OK.)

From http://www.canhamcameras.com/Roll%20film%20back.html

 

"K. B. Canham is pleased to offer the first motorized 6x17 roll film back for use on the Canham 5x7 view cameras (other cameras can be used, but please contact us first for information on how this can be done)."

 

Sounds like the answer to 1. is yes. I don't know about 2.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

Hello everybody,

 

Just to keep you updated: I've taken a first Polaroid with the lens and there is what I would call an unusual amount of flare in the area of the spotlights in the room of which I took the photo. Therefore I decided to return the lens to be on the safe side. Well, maybe I'll find a better one at some point in my life! ;)

 

Many thanks for all your help again and season's greetings,

 

David

Hello Roland,

 

Thank you for your insights.

 

The lens includes UV filter, front and back caps, but not the three colour filters.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

<p>

Hello John and everybody else,

</p>

 

<p>

I've now made a much better and larger photo of the phenomenon:

</p>

 

<p>

<a href="http://haardt.net/transfer/corrosion_large.jpg" target="_blank">http://haardt.net/transfer/corrosion_large.jpg</a>

</p>

 

<p>

The flash of course emphasises the rings somewhat, especially the outer ring. In my opinion, the outer ring quite clearly seems to be corrosion. But take a look at the inner ring, at what I wrongly believed to be lens cement -- looks weird, doesn't it?

</p>

 

<p>

I'd be grateful to read your comments.

</p>

 

<p>

Many thanks to all of you,

</p>

 

<p>

David

</p>

(Of course I'll also take some test shots with the fish-eye itself as soon as possible -- maybe that'll give some useful insights as well.)

Dan, thanks to you as well!

 

I will try to make better photos of the phenomenon -- not as easy as I thought but perhaps I'll try to use Polaroid films with a reverse-mounted 2.8/80 on the SL66 to get better macro shots than with my digital camera.

 

I've just spoken to the dealer and he said that a full refund would be no problem. So it's really just a matter of whether I should keep it like this or not... Difficult ;)

 

Best wishes,

 

David

Many thanks for your answers.

 

About the rings: the outer ring looks as if the black paint was scratched off. I am less sure about the inner ring: here, on can see many many very small brown dots (all over the ring, except on one segment). Looks a bit like I would imagine lens cement to look like but I don't have any experience in that area. The lenses themselves are not discoloured or anything.

 

Yes, there are some small scratches on the front lens but most of what can be seen on the photo is just dust. I received the lens only a short while ago and haven't cleaned or tested it yet.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

<p>

Sorry, the correct web address is <a href="http://haardt.net/transfer/2005-12-20-0001_small.jpg" target="_blank">http://haardt.net/transfer/2005-12-20-0001_small.jpg</a>

</p>

 

<p>

David

</p>

<p>

Hello,

</p>

 

<p>

I bought a Rolleiflex SL66 Oberkochen Opton F-Di 3.5/30 HFT from a

German dealer for about 1000 euros which is quite a good price I

think.

</p>

 

<p>

However, there are two problems with the lens:

</p>

 

<p>

1. There are fingerprints on the very back element (I couldn't see

fingerprints anywhere else). I suppose this problem should be OK to

deal with? Any ideas how I could get rid of them?

</p>

 

<p>

2. When looking into the lens from the front, one can see

two "rings", the outer one shiny (looks like the paint got off) and

the inner one brown/matte. See a photo which I took at <a

href="http://haardt.net/transfer/2005-12-20- 0001_small.jpg"

target="_blank">http://haardt.net/transfer/2005-12-20-

0001_small.jpg</a> Is this lens falling apart? What are these rings?

Are they harmful? Could problems develop in the future?

</p>

 

<p>

My overall question is whether the lens is worth it or whether I

should return it. I would be immensely grateful for any advice.

</p>

 

<p>

Best wishes,

</p>

 

<p>

David

</p>

Hi folks,

 

I am looking for a lab in the (South-East) UK where I can get

high-quality but also reasonably priced prints from 4x5" large format

slides (Fujichrome Velvia), plus cropping according to instructions.

 

Does anybody have suggestions of good labs? I'd be very grateful for

your advice! I'd like to send in the respective slide(s); labs with a

website would be particularly welcome.

 

Thank you so much for your time and help!!!

 

Best wishes,

-David

My view of film's future is as follows.

 

Digital cameras have the immense advantage of giving more people a "darkroom" than ever before. They are less cumbersome, of higher image quality, and less expensive than scanning 35mm film.

 

As far as digital projection is concerned, the earlier speaker is totally right. It is still in its infancy. Nevertheless, you can already print "real" slides from digital files, and the quality *is* better than 35mm. For a serious account, see for instance http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgEQUIPMENT/D1X.htm

 

I am however not afraid that film would be "dead" some day. Yes, it is "dying" in the sense that 35mm photography is (has been) surpassed by digital photography in terms of image quality, and even medium format is under serious pressure by modern 6-12 megapixel SLR's. But as long as there are people who do film photography for passion (few, but non-zero), there will be a market for film. Just as there is still a market for 8x10" large format and 8x10" film today.

 

Best,

Hello folks,

 

I haven't had much time for photography recently, but have now

decided that I should become more active again! I have experience

with formats from half-frame (18x24mm) to 4x5" large format; at the

moment, I own a Rolleiflex SL66 (which I intend to keep, as it is

easy to handle, can be projected easily, etc.). I had sold my 4x5"

Super Speed Graphic because the format is quite useless without a(n)

(big and expensive) enlarger (and the accompanying darkroom).

Moreover, I felt that the matte screen could have been bigger.

 

Thus: Why not go for 8x10"? It would be wonderful for contact prints

and alternative processes, and more adequate to my stature (6'6").

 

I'm into landscape photography and backpacking - luckily enough, I'm

more of a purist (you know, the guys with one lens and three film

holders). Moreover, I own a very handy Berlebach ashwood tripod

(7003) which is able to accomodate 26.4 lbs (12 kg), although only

weighing 4 lbs (1.8 kg).

 

OK, let's come to my actual question: you guess it, I'm asking which

camera to choose. Obviously, I need a light-weight flat-bed camera.

It should also be affordable and rugged. I'm not that much into long

lenses, I guess that a 480mm lens would be the longest I'd ever use.

 

Based purely upon weight and money - I live in Austria, so I've

multiplied U.S. prices by 1.10264 to account for the exchange rate

(assumed 0.88EUR=1USD), Austrian VAT (20%) and customs duties (5.3%) -

, I have selected the following FIVE cameras:

 

Canham Wood 8X10 EUR 3523 (Badger Graphic incl. VAT/duties), 4.3 kg

(9.5 lbs)

 

Gandolfi 8x10 Variant (Sinar lens board) EUR 3252 (John D. esq.), 4.0

kg (8.8 lbs)

 

Tachihara SW810F WoodField EUR 2090 (Badger Graphic incl.

VAT/duties), 4.2 kg (9.2 lbs)

 

Wehman 8x10 Field EUR 2040 (Bruce Wehman incl. VAT/duties), 4.0 kg

(8.8 lbs)

 

Zone VI Studios 8x10 Ultralight Field EUR 1984 (sale at Calumet Photo

incl. VAT/duties), 4.5 kg (9.9 lbs)

 

---start digression

 

Why I did NOT select certain other cameras:

 

Ebony SV810XX: heavy at 5.0-6.5 kg (11-14.3 lbs), and way out of my

budget.

 

Gandolfi Traditional Precision 8X10: a bit heavier than the Variant,

and much more expensive

 

Lotus Rapid Field 8x10: Austrian, but expensive (EUR 5100) and heavy

(4.9 kg or 10.8 lbs)

 

Phillips 8x10 Compact II: light-weight at 3.6 kg (7.9 lbs), but a

hefty EUR 4898...

 

Shenhao HZX810-IIA: a cheapo at EUR 1323, but heavy (6 kg or 13.2

lbs)

 

Wisner 8x10 Traditional L: the only affordable 8x10" Wisner, heavy at

4.8 kg (10.6 lbs), a bit less expensive than the Gandolfi

 

Wista Field 8x10: seem to be a Tachiharas actually, but more

expensive

 

---end digression

 

Out of the five cameras I've selected (Canham Wood, Gandolfi Variant,

Tachihara SW810F, Wehman, Zone VI Ultralight), where do you see their

relative merits and downsides?

 

Tachihara doesn't seem to be the best camera available, I also often

read about problems with the Zone VI. The Variant is less expensive

and lighter than the Canham, while the Wehman is much less expensive

than the Variant, and of the same weight.

 

Do you feel that the Wehman is a good deal compared to the others

I've mentioned? What about movements - I didn't yet look into this

important topic. Which of these cameras have important advantages or

disadvantages with respect to movements?

 

What else would I need? I'm thinking of a development drum (easy to

handle), a contact printing frame, of course film holders, dark

cloth, and changing bag, a LENS (Oh Dear), filter system, lens shade,

loupe, and maybe some day even a 8x10 Polaroid system. Did I miss

something?

 

To sum up, I'd be very happy to read about your experience. Thanks

for reading my looong post, and thank you for your help!

 

Best regards,

@David Killick:

 

Praktica bodies were labelled "Made in German Democratic Republic". In 1990, there was a batch of Praktica BX20 (last GDR-designed body) labelled "Made in Germany". At Photokina 1990, the BX20s was presented (first post-GDR model), essentially a BX20 with DX support.

 

I can remember that after the reunification, a "Western" magazine published a quite unfavourable (and superficial, as the reviewer missed some features which were actually there) review of the BX20s, which resulted in several enraged letters to the editor from the "East".

 

Today, Prakticas are quite sought after in the Eastern Laender of Germany, but not in the Western ones. This is comparable to model railroading, where the scale TT (1:120) is still very popular in the East, but not in the West.

 

More information on the Praktica B system can be found on Tiago Franco's excellent "Praktica B page": http://www.geocities.com/RodeoDrive/Mall/2536/

 

By the way, the Zeiss factory in Jena had problems due to trademark issues with Zeiss Oberkochen (West Germany). As a consequence, Carl Zeiss Jena products for the Western market were engraved "aus Jena" ("from Jena") rather than "Carl Zeiss Jena". Interestingly enough, this also holds true for the Western Zeiss products, which were engraved "Oberkochen Opton" rather than "Carl Zeiss Planar/etc." when produced for the Eastern market.

 

Best,