john_layton

<p>6X8 would be P-E-R-F-E-C-T</p>

<p>I've always struggled a bit with 6x7 - and have always felt that the perfect medium format ratio, for me, would be 6x8.</p>

<p>6x7, for me, can tend to look a bit "square." 6x9, on the other hand, can be a bit challenging for me when composing vertically (which I do rather often) - but is an admittedly nice ratio for horizontal landscapes.</p>

<p>For me, 6x8 would be an ideal compromise, and also decisively different enough to be complimentary to 6x6, which I also shoot on occasion. And what could be a minor point for some, 6x8 would give 9 frames per roll, which would give three equal lengths of 3 images - fitting perfectly into a single Print File page. Every time I cut a roll of 6x7 for storage, I need to either cut three lengths of three photos and have one left over, or cut three, three, and two for one page, and have two left over. This aggravates me to no end!</p>

<p>"film is breathing its last gasps now"<br>

<br>

Hardly. For example, take a look at the Freestyle's more than 300 separate listings for films of various types and sizes. Quite a number of choices I think!<br>

<br>

I do fear that such "last gasp" statements might cause more than a few folks to assume this (that film is almost dead) is actually true, potentially steering them away from even considering giving the "traditional" (silver-based film and wet darkroom) approach a chance. How Sad!<br>

</p>

<p>Sounds like you want something with a moderately wide angle lens.</p>

<p>The Fuji/Voigtlander 667W, with its 55mm lens, is absolutely superb. </p>

<p>I own both the wide and "normal" (with 80mm) versions, and have travelled extensively with them. They've never let me down. They offer superb optics, great portability/user friendliness, discrete (nearly inaudible) smooth shutter release, flat profiles for equally discrete storage, and viewfinders which are on par with those of my Leica M's. </p>

<p>I just purchased a pack with camera and lens inserts, plus two "Cascade" film holder systems, from Photobackpacker - and this is so well suspended/balanced, and so well thought out in general in terms of photography (large format in my case) workflow/logistics, that I think it may add an additional five (or more) years to my approaching "old age time window" for schlepping my gear into the wilds. </p>

<p>The lens looks like the recent (but not new) Macro Elmar-M - which has been around for, what...six or seven years I think? </p>

<p>Maybe its just the extension tube/adaptor that's "new?"</p>

<p>I just got a great deal on a used Delta 1 Electrostatic film drying cabinet - but it did not come with any instructions, nor can I seem to locate anything online to give any guidance relating to one pressing question: how many films (35mm, 120, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10) can I dry safely - with minimal risk of films swaying into each other (in fan-generated air currents) and sticking together?</p>

<p>The main problem is that this cabinet is opaque, and thus I have no idea of how the films are behaving while the dryer is being operated as intended - with the door closed. No problem seeing the films with the door open, but then the airflow if totally different and thus I cannot use this to gage safety with the door closed.</p>

<p>At any rate...I am seriously considering installing a couple of viewing windows into this unit - but before I get out my tools to do this I just need to ask if anyone else on this forum has experience with this cabinet, and can give some guidance as to how many films I can dry safely? Thanks!!</p>

<p>Another aspect of the TTL which makes it quite intuitive is the fact that the shutter speed dial direction equates directly to that of the exposure indicator lights. It was this aspect which helped to quell my earlier skepticism that I would never get used to the "new" direction of this dial versus that of the pre-ttl M's which I'd been using for so many years prior.</p>

<p>Yes...the frame lines change - by turning a coin-slotted fixture next to the film gate, prior to loading film. </p>

<p>Will - to answer your specific questions:<br>

- Re the 80mm focal length for 6x7...yes, i concur with this - that this indeed represents, to me, a sweet spot for this format. Kind of took me by surprise, but its true.</p>

<p>- Depth of field is somewhat subjective...and also partly dependent on a combination of the resolution capacity of your chosen film, degree of final enlargement, and average viewing distance from this enlargement. Furthermore...while it would be one thing to make a direct equation between 35mm and 6x7 and apply this generally to apparent depth of field, I find that in practice this is not altogether accurate. In purely practical terms...i would say that the useful depth of field for a given focal length in 6x7 would rest somewhere between that of the exact focal length and the "equivalent" focal length values. In other words, in the case of the 80mm lens, my useful medium format depth of field might, for a given aperture/focus distance/film type, equate to that of a 55mm lens on 35mm film, whereas the "equivalent" focal length would equal approximately 40mm, versus the exact value of 80mm for 35mm film. Having said this...you will get a variety of opinions from others I'm sure.</p>

<p>- I almost never find the 1/500th maximum shutter speed limiting...even in bright daylight conditions. But do understand that I tend to shoot landscapes with my MF cameras...and generally lean towards maximizing depth of field. And while an observable degree of diffraction limited resolution might exist in theory...I find that this is generally not noticeable in practice with the 80mm lens stopped all the way down to f/22, and the 55mm lens stopped down to f/16 - this with the use of t-max 400 film, developed in Pyrocat HD and enlarged to 16X20. I mostly use either one or two ND filters...a 3 stop and a 6 stop respectively, either singly or in combination - and then almost always at minimum apertures (f/22) in the quest of long exposures with moving subjects such as flowing water - in such cases a slight amount of diffraction limited resolution adds an appropriate degree of impressionism.</p>

<p>- In the spirit of full disclosure - I would actually prefer a 6x8 format over either a 6x7 or 6x9...regardless that 6x7 translates more directly to an 8x10 print, and regardless that 6x9 equates directly with 35mm in proportion. And while I deeply respect and admire Ansel Adams and all that he has given to photography...I do admit to some disappointment that he saw the square fomat as offering such horizontal/vertical "convenience." Personally, when i see square, I shoot square, and regardless of format I always aspire to print out to the edges of the frame in question. As for the GF's capacity to go either 6x6 or 6x7...I would find this much more useful if I could switch from one to the other mid-roll. <br>

...and yes - 6x7's are a pain to store in sleeves, at least for those that will contact print directly onto 8x10 paper and store in standard archival boxes. 6x8's, on the other hand, would be perfect!</p>

<p>- I've been using both rangefinder and reflex cameras, as well as view cameras, for over forty years...and each has its purpose. More recently, I tend to use rangefinder and view cameras about equally, and reflexed almost never. But more specific to rangefinder use - there is a bit of a learning curve here...in that one needs to be able to intuit visual outcomes, which takes a bit of practice...with the potential of providing a unique sense of intimacy and immediacy with your subject. Simply put - I feel that with a rangefinder I'm looking through a window instead of an "optical system," which in turn helps the camera to "get out of the way" while photographing. </p>

<p>- As for build quality...while I've been spoiled by that of various Leicas over the years - I find the Fuji/Voigtlander's to be fully on par with, and perhaps slightly ahead of, the Mamiya 7II's, and at least equal to what current prices would reflect.</p>

<p>- As for the lenshade/filter holder, I'd recommend that you purchase one of these, and thread this with your most frequently used filter - keeping in mind that for other filters you can simply use the 58mm threaded lens receptacle, with the understanding that you will need to remove the filter in question prior to collapsing the (standard, 80mm lens) camera. I've heard some reference to being able to collapse this camera with certain thin-mount filters in place...but do not know this as fact.</p>

<p>- The hood material itself appears to be plastic...while the inner mounting ring/filter ring is metal.</p>

<p>- Yes....as the B+H reviews reflect - the case is very tight, and I find it difficult to use while photographing.</p>

<p>I own both the normal and wide versions - and despite my assumption that I'd be using the wide more than the normal (based on my appx. 3 to 1 use of a 28mm over a 50mm on my Leicas) I find myself using the normal slightly more than the wide. The 80 has proved to be such a versatile and effective focal length for the way I use and see with this camera. That this camera folds to wonderful compactness is also a bonus!</p>

<p>As for the folding bellows mechanism and its associated "mechano-electrics," I've thus far had no problems with repeatedly folding/unfolding - as my tendency is to keep the bellows protected unless I'm actually photographing. The act of unfolding is not at all awkward...and indeed less awkward (and less time consuming) than removing a lens cap - in that a cap needs to be safely and dryly stowed.</p>

<p>As for filter use...I, too, have the attachable shade/filter holder, and keep it threaded with a medium orange filter. This attachment stores perfectly in a hard, pop-open ring (jewelry) case - which is sized perfectly to hold the attachment under slight tension vis a vis the slight interference fit between the hood's spring-loaded attachment tabs and the inside of the ring case. This ensures that nothing moves or rattles while stored for transport. My suggestion, if you purchase the GF-670, is to go ahead purchase the filter holder and head to your local jewelers to try a few cases!</p>

<p>What I will not recommend is the ever-ready ("never-ready!) case for the GF-670. I own this also...and while it does offer a degree of protection, I find it exceedingly difficult to use this in any sort of dynamic fashion. Specifically, I find the act of removing it from and replacing it onto the camera to be very tedious and time consuming. </p>

<p>I do highly recommend both of these cameras. Several years ago, I purchased these cameras and a Mamiya 7II with two lenses (50mm and 80mm) - and tested each against the other exhaustively, and while the 7II is indeed a wonderful camera with great lenses, I found the Fuji/Voigtlanders to be more applicable to my way of working/seeing ("seeing" because the GF's/GFW's viewfinders are stunningly close to those on my Leica M6's, while that on the 7II was, to my eye at least, a far cry from this). I also do quite a bit of photographing in winter, and it gets pretty cold up here in northern Vermont! At any rate, these cameras tuck away quite well under my jacket - and are ready for shooting very quickly, without stumbling around with changing lenses, etc.</p>

<p>I would say that about half my use of these cameras sees them tripod mounted (some of this with ND filters to facilitate long exposures), and half hand-held with reliably sharp photos accessible down to 1/30th sec, and some down to about 1/8th sec. Extraordinarily smooth shutter release and virtually vibrationless and quiet shutter helps to make this possible. </p>

<p>My two remaining wishes are that Fuji/Voigtlander would offer a close up attachment for the 80mm, and introduce an even wider version of this camera - perhaps with a 40mm lens. I'd then carry all three of these around in a heartbeat!</p>

<p>About the only reservation I might have in cementing my above recommendation, at least in response to your full posting, is the aspect of learning the zone system. While a working knowledge and application of zone system technique is always recommended with any camera - it is only when you have access to the ability to treat each negative separately at the points of exposure and development that you will realize its full benefits. This can be difficult with a roll film camera, where a wide range of subject/luminance ranges might be recorded on a single roll of film. A good workaround for this with medium format would be to consider a system which features interchangeable film backs - such as that offered by the Hasselblad or Mamiya RB/RZ systems.</p>

<p>Hope this helps....and good luck!</p>

 

<p>Dave - thanks for the clarification.</p>

<p>...and I will also admit that in regards to practically achievable limits of resolution with 4x5, regardless of film type - there are indeed some variables (thermal expansion of film, imperfect holders, etc.) which can and do occasionally conspire to counter this. </p>

<p>My sincere apologies...in that my above posting does represent somewhat of a tangent to the original poster's question. Given his current situation...I would say that there might indeed be a compelling argument in favor of his moving forward with a purely digital workflow - given that his end results meet his needs.</p>

<p>I guess I do tend to get up on my horse a bit though...in response to what I see as downright (and potentially destructive) mis information on forums such as these. So yes, my posting was prompted as more of a reaction to this, and less to help the original poster. </p>

<p>"fewer still if we limit ourselves to what's available in 4x5 (maybe Ektar 100, Portra 160, and possibly Delta 100?)"<br>

<br>

hmmm...at last count B+H lists 22 kinds of 4x5 film - and Freestyle lists 25.<br>

<br>

Also...might I suggest basing comparisons of digital vs film output on what one might consider "best practices" for each? In other words, take the weak link of scanning out of the equation altogether...and take your film into a darkroom environment to print - assuming that you know how to do this well enough to make the comparison truly meaningful.<br>

<br>

Case in point: I had a student last Spring - an owner of a high end, digital based photography business - who wanted to learn black and white analogue technique so that he could enhance his business (yes...there is a viable business model here!) At any rate, the focus of his study involved doing a real comparison - by creating a series of window light portraits executed using three separate workflows: one being digital capture (Nikon D800) and digital printing (converted to black and white), the second being medium format film capture (TMY 120 with an RZ-67 and 180mm lens) and scanning on an Epson V750 prior to printing, the third being the aforementioned MF film capture - followed by printing in a darkroom, using a well aligned Beseler 45mx enlarger, 16X20 Ilford Multigrade Warmtone fiber paper, and fresh chemistry.<br>

<br>

The above student's initial results were not surprising - being so well versed in digital technique allowed him to arrive at more than acceptable, "pro-quality" results more quickly with both the purely digital and hybrid workflows. But after a few weeks of fairly intense darkroom practice - it became more and more apparent that the completely analogue workflow resulted in smoother tonal transitions, greater overall useful tonal ranges, more "believable" micro-contrast transitions...in general more appealing results overall - that those achieved with either purely digital or hybrid workflows. And this with medium format. Had this student used 4x5 film, his results would likely have shown these results to an even greater advantage. Furthermore, and with a bit of practice, this student could realize these results quickly and efficiently enough to allow for a truly cost effective enhancement to his photography business - by adding black and white analogue based services.<br>

<br>

Just a bit of food for thought!<br>

</p>

 

<p>OK - I'll put this another way. Maybe you should just find someone who uses large format - ask this person to allow you to get your head under the darkcloth. Allow your eyes to adjust to the upside-down image. Take hold of the focus and tilt controls...and allow yourself to be amazed - as in completely blown away. I've witnessed this...again and again - young photo students who by a leap of faith allow themselves to suspend this otherwise stubbornly persistent disbelief - based on...what, truly? And then they start to get it. How wonderful!<br>

At any rate...I highly recommend that even if you don't begin with a large format camera - you at some point look through that dark cloth...take hold of those controls...and expand your horizons just a little bit more. And then...who knows?</p>

<p>Assuming that the large format camera in question features a decent range of axial and lateral movements, and is at least reasonably sturdy...then I can think of no better tool with which to learn and apply the most basic foundational elements of photography. </p>

<p>I've been photographing, teaching others to photograph, and designing/building my own large format cameras for about 40 years. In any college level curricula that I have been involved in designing...I've always insisted on incorporating large format theory and practice, starting with the most "basic" classes.</p>

<p>The large format camera, in terms of the "transparency" of its optical/mechanical elements, is perhaps the most simple and basic of all cameras - presenting an ideal platform for exploration (input) and feedback (output) by and to a novice student/practitioner....who over time will come to appreciate this most "basic" tool as being capable, to this day, of offering the most sophisticated/intuitive approach to image creation - as this relates to the control of image geometry and focus - when compared to any other type of camera. </p>

<p>So yes...by all means start with a view camera - with the further recommendation that you ensure the continuity of (your own foundational learning and practice) process by taking your large format negatives into a wet darkroom to print. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Shadow values typically develop to completion in about one half of the "manufacturers recommended development time." Highlights, however, generally keep developing much longer.</p>

<p>Thus...exposing for shadows makes sense, in that if exposed and placed correctly as shadows, their degree of density in a negative will closely approximate the exposed/placed values, given that this portion of the developing time is sufficient. After this, one can vary the remaining developing time to control highlight density. More time equals denser highlights, while the shadows remain more or less constant.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"to say nothing of the fact that I do not have to spend any time scanning or color-balancing as I did with film."<br>

Well guess what? I don't have to spend time scanning or color balancing either...and I get much better results from medium format film that I do from digital. How? I WET PRINT MY NEGATIVES THE "OLD FASHIONED WAY," In A DARKROOM!!!<br>

Why, oh why, do folks insist on basing film vs digital results on scanning from MF? You wanna compare results with any degree of fairness? Then do the best possible job with each media - right to the end product (preferably a 24X30 or larger print)...then tell us which is "better!"<br>

Hey...I've got nothing against digital - love it in fact for many applications. Just don't try to tell me that in the hands of a true master a wet developed and printed result is in any way inferior to a digitally captured and printed result! <br>

Thanks for the rant...its been pure catharsis!</p>

 

<p>In trying to define what might be a good travel camera, its important to think of the particular context of "travel"...with modes such as backpacking, car-camping, flying to a destination and renting a car, or whatever.</p>

<p>My wife and I do quite a bit of hiking, and multi-day backpacking...and for this I find that either a Leica-M or the pair of Fuji-Voigtlander 667's (standard and wide models) to be unparalleled, in terms of reasonable compactness and weight, plus the ability to photograph on-the-move, without needing to remove my backpack, and without the necessity of a tripod or external light meter. </p>

<p>Sometimes I'll bring a Feisol CF tripod (tall model, with photo-clam head) along - this tripod is wonderful, with total weight at around 2.5 lbs, and has features which thus far are not quite available from Gitzo or anyone else - given the total weight, maximum height, etc.</p>

<p>When car camping, I'll often bring large format gear - 4X5 or 5X7...and/or a Hasselblad system, consisting of a 903SWC with focussing screen, a 501CM with 50, 80, and 120(macro) lenses, a prism and a couple of backs - plus a large Gitzo CF for large format, and my trusty old Leitz Tiltall for the blads. I really don't consider the Hasselblad, which invites taking time and thoughtful contemplation (as does large format, for that matter), that much of a backpacking camera...perhaps with the exception of the SWC. </p>

<p>For flying to a destination, I'll sometimes just pack the Fuji/Voigtlanders with the Feisol, or perhaps just a large format and Gitzo, but almost never both as this is just too much juggling in addition to other logistics. In a pinch I can add a single M Leica to either set.</p>

<p>If I'm feeling totally into square format, but need to travel light, I'll pack the SWC with a Rolleiflex 3.5F - a wonderful combo...and if I'm feeling confident - I'll leave the spot meter at home and just go with sunny 16 - which usually works just fine.</p>

<p>...I guess what I am getting at is that for me, it all depends on the nature of the trip. If I had to choose but one camera from the above - it might just be the Rolleiflex...and someday I may indeed need to make this choice - but not yet!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just remember...that many of the older folding medium format cameras (Ikontas, etc.) are front element focussers - meaning less than stellar results at any distance closer than infinity...and stopped down a bit. There are exceptions of course...such as the old Voigtlander Bessa II, but even with this there are issues of film flatness with the 6X9 format, plus largish shutters which tend to add some vibration, plus weak pressure plate springs, etc. which can conspire to severely compromise what would otherwise be great performance. <br>

If you are talking 20X24 inch prints to sell, then you really owe it to yourself to acquire something which gives consistently great results - as in a Mamiya 7 or the aforementioned Fuji/Voigtladers (or perhaps a Hasselblad, and possibly a Mamiya Press camera, which is rather bulky but conceptually wonderful, as is the later RZ-67). </p>

 

<p>I've had fantastic results from the Fuji/Voigtlander 667 and 667W - using them outside here in Vermont through the winter...to the blowing sands of the desert southwest...to the salt-laden air of the Maine coast. Stunning quality allows for great enlargments. Ultra smooth and quiet shutter release allows me to consistently achieve perfect sharpness down to 1/30th of a second handheld, and the two cameras fit side by side in a compact, messenger style bag. Total weight of the two cameras, bag, plus a feisol carbon fiber tripod, a few rolls of film, plus a few filters, is under ten pounds.<br>

....but if you don't like RF - maybe you should get a Hasselblad. If you don't like the square format, either get an A-16 back (which means also getting a right angle prism, like a PM-90, to shoot verticals), or the 645 mask set - which admittedly wastes a bit of film, but which you can install either horizontally or vertically in an A-12 back, allowing you to use the waist lever finder for either orientation - saving weight, space, and perhaps being somewhat more conducive to a "zen-like" experience, specifically in that this allows you to use both eyes.</p>

<p>A few years back I read a passage by a photographer shooting 120 who'd been having trouble with getting absolutely even exposure for sky values...which he'd then solved by processing his film by hand in a long, open trough - using the leader tape of the film to form a loop of film, with emulsion side inward - which facilitated the agitation process consisting of gently flipping the loop over and over. </p>

<p>I actually have three plastic troughs lying around someplace - which were made just for the above purpose - but have never tried them. </p>

<p>The semi-circular key that you twist in order to remove the back's film-insert also causes a metal "shelf" to move in and out - so that this shelf either contacts an edge of the insert's pressure-plate (and depresses it slightly) or rests slightly above the pressure plate - with a little bit of space between it and the pressure plate. This is very important to know! As you remove the insert from the back, the metal shelf will be in its "lowered" position. You should then twist the insert-removal key again so that the shelf raises up over the pressure plate, and then make sure that the edge of the film gets fed underneath this shelf as you wind it forward before you re-insert the insert. Finally, as you twist the key yet again, the shelf lowers and squeezes the pressure plate - with the film trapped underneath...which is a good thing - because once the insert is in place in the back shell and you give the key a final twist to lock it in place...the little shelf raises once again - and the film is right where it should be, resting evenly across the pressure plate. </p>

<p>It is quite common (I think...well, at least in my case years ago!) for first time Hassy owners to simply feed the film over the top of the shelf in the insert prior to placing the insert into the back shell. This will cause that edge of the film to be pushed upward away from the pressure plate...and thus that edge will look just as yours does..."smeared and distorted" (out of focus).</p>

<p>(jeeze....sorry about my wordiness...I hope its not too confusing....I need my morning coffee!)</p>

<p>....and if you are very attached to your older, high trigger voltage flash system...it is possible to get a simple, inexpensive sync-voltage filter to go between flash and camera - to keep switch voltage to around 15 or so. Mine works great and keeps my gear safe!</p>

<p>If the Tessar on the MX is clean and in good shape, it can be a stunning performer in the range of f/11 or so. Also tends to flare less than the later planar as it has fewer elements. I owned one of these awhile ago, and it was truly amazing.</p>

<p>I currently own a 3.5F, series 3, with the six element Planar. Stunning performer with a great range of useable apertures - thus versatile.</p>

<p>...but if I only needed F/8, 11, and 16, then I certainly would have kept the MX.</p>